W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > June 2007

executing Monica's proposed change

From: Rogers, Tony <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:58:02 +1000
Message-ID: <BEE2BD647C052D4FA59B42F5E2D946B37201B6@AUSYMS12.ca.com>
To: "Bob Freund" <bob@freunds.com>, "[WS-A]" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Looking at the words to resolve Monica's issue, I find myself stumbling over the repetition of "to indicate that the subject supports WS-Addressing but does not require its use, " in successive sentences. Would anyone be perturbed if I exercised my editorial licence, and elided the second copy of this clause to a semicolon? What I'm suggesting is that we convert:
 
 In order to indicate that the subject supports WS-Addressing but does not require its use, an additional policy alternative should be provided which does not contain this assertion.  To indicate that the subject supports WS-Addressing but does not require its use, the compact authoring style for an optional policy assertion provided by WS-Policy V1.5 [link] may be used.  
 
into:
 
 In order to indicate that the subject supports WS-Addressing but does not require its use, an additional policy alternative should be provided which does not contain this assertion; the compact authoring style for an optional policy assertion provided by WS-Policy V1.5 [link] may be used.  
 
I believe this is as explicit, but somewhat easier to read.
 
If people (especially Monica) object, I'll use the former version.
 
 
Tony Rogers
CA, Inc
Senior Architect, Development
tony.rogers@ca.com
co-chair UDDI TC at OASIS
co-chair WS-Desc WG at W3C

 
Received on Monday, 18 June 2007 23:58:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:19 GMT