sounds good. I have also found that the NONE-NOASSERTION fields are still not consistent - I missed a couple in my previous review and have simply caught other inconsistencies. :( Am doing another pass on just that now. Other than that, have found some minor typos and maybe a couple other substantive issues that might warrant another look… more shortly.
Jilayne SPDX Legal Team co-lead [email protected] > On May 5, 2015, at 11:19 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Hi Jilayne, > Caught some, but agree that they should all be made consistent. > Suggest we just handle this as a bug at this point. > > Kate > > > > On Tuesday, May 5, 2015 11:56 AM, J Lovejoy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > there are 106 instances of “SPDX file” and 74 instances of “SPDX document” - > do we want to make consistent to one or the other? > > J. > > >> On May 4, 2015, at 3:00 PM, [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Sounds good. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Kate >> >> >> >> On Monday, May 4, 2015 9:54 AM, "Manbeck, Jack" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> Kate, >> >> I checked it and clicked all the links. Some hyper links were obvious >> examples (i.e. the acme ones) so they don’t go anywhere. I have some minor >> comments on the links but they are suggestions and I will file a bug report. >> This looks good to post. I will co-ordinate with Gary. >> >> Jack >> >> >> From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] >> Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2015 11:03 PM >> To: Mark Gisi; Jilayne Lovejoy; Manbeck, Jack >> Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> Subject: SPDX 2.0 - posted in >> http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Technical_Team/SPDX_Specification_Versions >> <http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Technical_Team/SPDX_Specification_Versions> >> >> Hi Jack, >> I've posted the 2.0 version of the specification on the WIKI now. >> It includes the changes from Jilay (via .doc) and Mark Gisi (wiki page). >> >> I think I've managed to get all the alginement sorted, and hyperlinks >> working, etc. But would welcome someone else downloading them >> and confirming there are no problems. >> >> Thanks, Kate > > >
_______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
