W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-soap-jms@w3.org > July 2008

More minor nits with the specification

From: Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:04:42 -0700
Message-ID: <48725ABA.40904@tibco.com>
To: "SOAP/JMS (list)" <public-soap-jms@w3.org>

OK, so going over the specification
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms.html
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms.html?rev=1.11&content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8
carefully for the FPWD decision, I noticed the following:

Section 1.4: The table shows the row with prefix "xsd" in a different 
font from the other prefixes.

Section 2.1: When we make the change to put in the specific JMS calls, 
then the word "implicitly" in the first sentence here makes no sense. 
Suggested change: "... and the JMS calls (or their equivalents) that a 
conforming implementation ought to make."

Section 2.4: The sentence: "The encoding will depend on whether the 
payload is simply a SOAP Envelope or whether there are any attachments, 
and the JMS "contentType" property 2.2.3 JMS Message properties will 
reflect this appropriately." should probably link directly to the 
contentType property, in the same way that other parts of the document 
link back to properties.

Section 2.6.1.1, 2.6.2.3: "api" --> "API".

Section 2.6.2: "The following subsections describe each state in more 
detail and apply to both SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2 unless stated 
otherwise."  Strike the "unless..." --> "The following subsections 
describe each state in more detail and apply to both SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 
1.2."  There are no qualifiers in the subsequent text that make this 
"unless" clause relevant.

Section 2.7.2: Some URLs here are not monospaced, in contrast to all 
other URLs in the body of the document.

-Eric.
Received on Monday, 7 July 2008 18:05:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:16:17 GMT