Re: Minor editorial points to WSDL spec

Hi Marc

Thanks for doing this.

For the editorial suggestion that requires discussion (below), I'll raise 
it with the group, (but during LC as I don't want to hold up the spec 
because of this). 
By the way, do we have a wsaw namespace yet?   2006/02?

Many thanks
Katy




> 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.






Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM> 
Sent by: Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM
13/02/2006 16:58

To
Katy Warr/UK/IBM@IBMGB
cc
Tony.Rogers@ca.com, umit.yalcinalp@sap.com, "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" 
<public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Subject
Re: Minor editorial points to WSDL spec






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.