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

Editorial suggestions for wsa core

From: Winkler, Steve <steve.winkler@sap.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:37:44 -0700
Message-ID: <55620CF891864D4984A16302E4C420AA4AE576@uspale20.pal.sap.corp>
To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>



Hi Editors,

Below you'll find several (very) minor editorial suggestions that I
would like to make before we move into CR.  I think that the
recommendation for section 3.2 is the only one that would result in a
semantic change, but I think the result will be consistent with the
intent of the authors.  

Cheers,
Steve 


Generic (occurs more than once throughout the text)

Current: [reference parameters] and [relationship]
Proposed: [reference parameters] and [relationships] || [reference
parameter] and [relationship]
Rationale: Both of these property definitions are unbounded and can
occur multiple times, yet one is defined as plural and the other
singular.  In order to be consistent, they should either both be
singular or both be plural (my personal choice, as it reflects the
possibility of more than one occurrence. 

Abstract

Current: "facilitate end-to-end addressing of endpoints in messages."
Proposed: "facilitate end-to-end addressing of endpoints and messages."
Rationale: reads better.

Introduction

Current: "A Web service endpoint is a (referenceable) entity,"
Proposed: "A Web service endpoint is a referenceable entity,"
Rationale: reads better.

1.1

Current: ', "*" denotes zero or more occurrences, "+" one or more
occurrences'
Proposed: ' "*" denotes zero or more occurrences, "+" denotes one or
more occurrences'
Rationale: consistency

3.1

Current: 'for the intended receiver for replies to this message.'
Proposed: 'for the intended receiver of replies to this message.
Rationale: reads better.

Current: 'for the intended receiver for faults to this message.'
Proposed: 'for the intended receiver of faults to this message.
Rationale: reads better.

Current: 'A binding of WS_Addressing message'
Proposed: 'A binding of WS-Addressing message'
Rationale: reads better.

3.2

Current: '<wsa:To>xs:anyURI</wsa:To> ?'
Proposed: '<wsa:To>xs:anyURI</wsa:To>'
Rationale: wsa:To is required by the specification as is wsa:Action, so
this representation should be consistent with that of wsa:Action in the
same table.

3.3

Note: I think that it would be more illustrative of the intent of the
spec to either include the /wsa:RelatesTo/@RelationshipType specifically
in the example, or have some text that states that its ommission
reflects the defaulting mechanism, which results in the value 'reply'.

4.1

Current: 'from data, such as a timestamp, such that a legitimate
retransmission'
Proposed: 'from data, such as a timestamp, so that a legitimate
retransmission
Rationale: reads better.

Current: 'It is also advisable to use a [message id] that is not
predictable, to prevent attackers from constructing and sending an
unsolicited reply to a message without having to see the actual
message.'
Proposed: 'It is also advisable to use a [message id] that is not
predictable to prevent attackers from constructing and sending an
unsolicited reply to a message without having to have first seen the
actual message.'
Rationale: reads better
Received on Saturday, 23 July 2005 01:37:51 GMT

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