W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > September 2004

Re: XMLP Review of WSDL 2.0 Part 2 LC WD

From: <michael.mahan@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 15:41:33 -0700
Message-ID: <58D73BB53FF60440A12C02091C78F0B80574C3BA@sdebe001.americas.nokia.com>
To: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>

Hi, comments below...

>> 1) Editorial - mismatched document scope
>> Recommendation: revise Part 1 Introduction text, moving the abstract
>> text from Part 2 into the Intro of Part 1 for consistency and accuracy.
>That looks like an excellent idea.

Great.

>> 2) Clarification request in section 2 - 'Predefined Message Exchange
>Ws can try to clarify the relationship with the two SOAP MEPs (which both
>map to a single WSDL MEP, please note), but some of that sort of
>clarification properly belongs in part three, not part two. We have tried
>to clarify the characteristics that collectively differentiate one [WSDL]
>MEP from another in the definition that begins that section (predefined
>MEPs).  

Yes - an explicit description of how the 2 SOAP MEPs map to their WSDL 
MEP counterpart would be helpful, even if only described in cursory fashion 
here in part 2. 

>Is it possible that, because the XMLP folks are so familiar with
>SOAP MEPs, that they have read this part with less openness?

This must be rhetorical.

>Clarifying the fault propagation rules with respect to the SOAP processing
>model (and its rules for fault generation) is nearly out of scope.  I
>think we simply need to emphasize that these rules are about propagation,
>not generation, and indicate that generation rules are the domain of the
>processing model, whatever it may be.

Text that explains the distinction between fault propagation and 
generation and how these relate to the processing model would be 
clarifying in this context, thanks. 

>> 3) Editorial - sections 2.1.[12]
>> Recommendation: remove references to message cardinality.
>Hmm, yes, looks like old stuff, pretty much.

Great.

>> 4) Editorial - section 3.1 Application Data Feature
>Glen, could you comment?  Or maybe DavidO?

OK
Received on Tuesday, 28 September 2004 22:43:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:31 GMT