W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > April 2005

Re: Editorial stuff for Core Spec

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 10:40:03 -0700
Message-Id: <37a7e672fde9f5f22647ffdd733ea854@bea.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
To: "Srinivas, Davanum M" <Davanum.Srinivas@ca.com>

Dims,

It's best to send these in as Last Call comments (see the status 
section of the draft) to make sure that they get done. It would be very 
helpful if you could send each issue as a separate e-mail.

Thanks,


On Apr 12, 2005, at 9:58 AM, Srinivas, Davanum M wrote:

>
> Hi Marc/Editors,
>
> #1: In the core spec Section 3 and Section 3.1 can we change the order
> of the Abstract Properties and the XML Infoset representation to be the
> same? For example " [destination] : IRI (mandatory)" is first in 
> Section
> 3, but Section 3.1 has "/wsa:MessageID"...just to make things
> clear/easy.
>
> #2: In "3.2 Formulating a Reply Message" should we say something about
> wsa:Metadata? (or is it just implied that it is ignored/consumed)
>
> #3: Example 3-1 in core spec has an extra "?"
> <wsa:RelatesTo RelationshipType="..."?>xs:anyURI</wsa:RelatesTo>
>                                     ^^^^
>
> #4: Table 1-1 lists S11, but S11 is not used in the doc. Should we
> remove it from table 1-1? And related observation is that the text does
> not say anything about SOAP 1.1 (it just says - "WS-Addressing may be
> used with SOAP [SOAP 1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework] as described in
> Web Services Addressing 1.0 - SOAP Binding[WS-Addressing-SOAP].").
>
> #5: Some URL's in References are bad. They have an extra '.'
> 	[IETF RFC 2119] - 2nd URL
> 	[WSDL 2.0] - 2nd URL
> 	[XML 1.0] - 2nd URL
> 	[XML Namespaces] - 2nd and 4th URL
>       [XML Information Set] - 2nd and 4th URL
> 	[XML Schema Structures] - 2nd URL and 4th URL
>       [XML Schema Datatypes] - 2nd and 4th URL
>
> #6: Section 4 Security Considerations has a typo? (" message level
> signature, and use of an XML digital signature") should the "and" be
> replaced with an "or"?
>
> #7: Should "Table 3-1. Predefined [relationship] values" say "Table 
> 3-1.
> Predefined [relationship] types"?
>
> Thanks,
> dims
>
> Davanum Srinivas
> Computer Associates
> Senior Architect, Web Services Group
> Tel: +1 508 628 8251
> davanum.srinivas@ca.com
> http://ws.apache.org/~dims/
>
>
>
>

--
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2005 17:40:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:05 GMT