Re: Some editorial issues with the Metadata document

On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 15:07 -0500, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: 

> On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 11:49 -0500, David Hull wrote:
> >     * I believe this has already been done to death, but my $0.02 on
> >       table 3-1 is that it's not immediately clear what "REQUIRED"
> >       means.  I'd naively  think it meant that the MAPs are required,
> >       but that seems redundant in the row marked "yes" for MAPs in input
> >       message.  From the subsequent text I gather it means "you have to
> >       include the required MAPs."  Since the requirements are clearly
> >       spelled out in section 5, perhaps "see section 5", or "as per
> >       section 5" or such might be clearer.
> 
> The table is mixing several information making it difficult to read.



The table format was lost in my message, so here is the table in HTML:
     wsdl:required
 MAPs in Input message?
MAPs in Output message?
          true
Yes
Yes
          true
No
The endpoint MUST
generate a SOAP Fault.
         false
Yes
Yes
         false
No
Optional. If using SOAP,
MAP headers MUST NOT
have a
soap:mustUnderstand
attribute with a value
of "true"

Philippe