W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > February 2006

Re: Minor editorial points to WSDL spec

From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:58:13 -0500
To: Katy Warr <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>
Cc: Tony.Rogers@ca.com, umit.yalcinalp@sap.com, "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Message-id: <43F0BAA5.9000608@sun.com>

Katy Warr wrote:
> > EDITORIAL SUGGESTION: Change 'or' to 'and/or'
>  >> 2. Including WSDL Metadata in EPRs
>  >>
>  >> An EPRs metadata section can contain a reference to WSDL metadata or 
> can include embedded WSDL metadata.
> 
> This suggests that the metadata section contains EITHER a reference OR 
> the embedded metadata.  In fact, as stated in section
> 2.2, the metadata section can include embeded metadata in conjunction 
> with a reference:
>  
Fixed.

> 
> EDITORIAL NIT-PICK :o)
> Often "EPRs" is used instead of "EPR's" when not talking plural.  e.g.:
>  >> Including WSDL Metadata in EPRs
>  >>
>  >> An ***EPRs*** metadata section can contain a reference to WSDL 
> metadata or can include embedded WSDL metadata.
> 
Fixed.

> EDITORIAL SUGGESTION:
> Section 2.1
> Do we need to specify cardinality for InterfaceName, ServiceName and 
> EndpointName - i.e. to ensure that there are never multiple ones specified?
> Section 2.2
> As above but with embedded WSDL definitions - do we need to specify max 1?
> 
Not done, I agree with your interpretation but I think its worth raising 
this in the WG to make sure everyone agrees.

> EDITORIAL SUGGESTION:
> New document, (with Anonymous Element):
>  >> Section 3.2 Anonymous Element
>  >>      :
>  >> -   “optional”: This value indicates that a response endpoint EPR in 
> a request message MAY contain an anonymous URI as an address.
> Could we add "This defines the default behavior."? Although it is 
> implied from the previous section, this might help people reading who 
> aren't familiar with the
> text.

Done.

Marc.
Received on Monday, 13 February 2006 16:59:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:11 GMT