WG4 comment collection system

[Jesper Lund Stocholm]

Hi Doug, all

 

It sounds really fine - thanks for you and your team's effort in doing
this.

 

See you all next week,

 

J

 

Jesper Lund Stocholm
ciber Danmark A/S

From: Doug Mahugh [mailto:Doug.Mahugh at microsoft.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:21 AM
To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: WG4 comment collection system

 

WG4 members,

 

I'd like to follow up on the changes we discussed for the comment
collection system.  Here are the current changes that the project team
is working on for the comment system:

 

1. Support for different scripts: The "Nature of Correction" and
"Proposed Solution" text fields will support all Unicode characters.
This will address concerns of allowing the user to input data in
different languages.

 

2. Support for specifying multiple IS29500 references: The user will be
allowed to specify more than one part#-clause#-page# combination for a
specific defect report. The user will have to specify at least one
part#-clause#-page# combination for every DR.

 

3. Field Validations: There will be regular expression validation for
the following fields Part number, clause number and page number.

 

4. Exporting Data from comment collection system:  The editor will have
access to a tool which will generate a word document that contains all
the DRs in a given range of DR numbers. All users will also be given an
option to generate a report of a subset of defect reports returned as a
result set by the query builder tool.

 

I'm not sure whether these changes will be ready for next week, but I
thought I should let everyone know what's going on, so that we can
discuss the details as needed.  I'll send more information when the
changes are complete.

 

There were also some other changes we had discussed when we were
thinking in terms of the comment collection system being the master
repository of all IS29500 defect reports.  Those changes are on hold,
because it looks like the master-repository premise isn't realistic.
We've already seen defect reports submitted via several different
mechanisms: the web site (Japan and Israel have used this option), the
form Rex provided (as used by the UK recently), and another version of
the G5 defect report form (as used by Switzerland).  These are all valid
processes for submitting defect reports, and WG4 can't make use of the
web site compulsory.  Furthermore, we probably wouldn't want to do so,
for a variety of reasons.  For example, some defect reports require
complicated or subtle formatting, and those are best prepared in the
submitter's preferred word-processing software.  Some submitters may
prefer to work offline.  And so on.

 

So the current thinking (which we can discuss in Prague and the
subsequent calls as needed) is that the web site will simply be one of
several options for submitting defect reports, and Rex will manage the
processing of defect reports with his own tracking log, as he is doing
already.

 

One aspect we will need to discuss and decide is how to manage comments
on defect reports.  We had discussed adding threaded commenting
functionality to the system, but that was when we were thinking that all
defect reports would reside in it.  I think we'd all agree that it's not
a good idea to have multiple systems for tracking comments on defect
reports, so we need to settle on an approach that works for all DRs,
regardless of how they're submitted.  Perhaps email will be sufficient,
after we start the regular phone calls.  Or we could use a bug-tracking
system for this purpose, as was suggested in Okinawa.  We can discuss
these options going forward.

 

See you in Prague in a few days.

 

Best regards,

Doug

 

Doug Mahugh | Lead Standards Professional | Office Interoperability |
425-707-1182 | http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh
<http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20090319/effc2b37/attachment.htm>