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

Re: [LC107]: WS Description WG comments on WS-A (editorial)

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:59:57 -0700
Message-Id: <674B3E0B-7EC7-4728-B10E-15B8B2562DF6@bea.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>

I think they can be safely classed as editorial; if anyone believes  
differently they can bring it up as AOB on the next call.

On 29/06/2005, at 12:24 PM, Jonathan Marsh wrote:

>
> I have an AI to respond to this comment, but it appears we have  
> dealt with the first two points, and not the editorial  
> clarifications requested in the last two points.  Did we refer  
> those points to the editors?
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: public-ws-addressing-comments-request@w3.org on behalf of  
> Jonathan Marsh
> Sent: Fri 5/13/2005 7:13 AM
> To: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org
> Subject: WS Description WG comments on WS-A (editorial)
>
>
>
>
> The Web Services Description WG reviewed the WS-A specs, and had these
> editorial comments on Section 3 of the Core spec touching on
> WSDL-related terminology:
>
> - "The basic interaction pattern from which all others are composed is
> "one way"." It would be preferable to use "one way" in a manner
> consistent with the use of the term for the WSDL 1.1 transmission
> primitive - "One-way".
>
> - "Request Reply" is a common interaction pattern...." Likewise, it
> would be preferable to use "Request Reply" in a manner consistent with
> the use of the term for the WSDL 1.1 transmission primitive -
> "Request-Response".
>
> - "...or to a particular WSDL MEP." Since this spec primarily  
> references
> WSDL 1.1 transmission primitives, shouldn't this be consistently  
> worded
> as "...or to a particular WSDL transmission primitive or MEP." (to
> capture support of WSDL 1.1 and 2.0)?
>
> - In the description for [action], we have "...within a WSDL port  
> type."
> Shouldn't this be consistently worded as "...within a WSDL port  
> type or
> interface." (to capture support of WSDL 1.1 and 2.0)?
>
> These comments were compiled by Charlton Barretto, who also identified
> other general editorial issues which we expect him to file separately.
> Please accept our apologies for the tardiness of the above  
> comments, and
> for our delay of Charlton's additional comments.
>
> Thank you.
> Jonathan Marsh on behalf of the WS Description WG
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


--
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Friday, 1 July 2005 21:46:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:06 GMT