W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > April 2005

RE: Part 1 editorial comments

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:05:19 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A507609C69@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>

Thank you for the comment below, and for your patience with us in
resolving it.  We tracked the comment below as Issue LC35 [1].  The
editors have addressed the editorial matters you highlight below in
their latest draft [2].

If you agree with our disposition of your comment, we'd like you to
acknowledge it within two weeks; otherwise we will assume you are
satisfied.  The WG plans to enter a second (short) Last Call period in
the near future, and we invite you to review that publication as well.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC35
[2] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Hugo Haas
> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 8:58 AM
> To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Part 1 editorial comments
> 
> Below is a list of typos and editorial fixes I noted in Part 1:
> - section 2: s/.e.g/e.g./.
> - section 2.1.1: s/and that it resolve/and that it resolves/.
> - section 2.4.2: s/such as
>   'http://www.w3.org/2004/08/wsdl/in-only'/i.e. when
>   ''http://www.w3.org/2004/08/wsdl/in-only' is in use/; indeed, this
>   is the only possibility.
> - section 2.4.2.1: s/AII/&AII;/ and s/be be/be/.
> - section 2.4.3.4: s/whether the operation is safe or not/whether the
>   operation is declared to be safe or not/; indeed, safe='false'
>   doesn't mean that the operation isn't safe, but that it hasn't been
>   declared as such as per 2.4.1.
> - section 2.5.1: s/wsdls:token/wsdls:Token/.
> - section 2.6.2.1: s/fault attribute information item/ref attribute
>   information item/.
> - section 2.7.1.1.1: the example is missing the WSDL default
>   namespace.
> - section 10.1: I don't think that the RDF mapping is a normative
>   reference; it is an informative one.
> - sections A and A.2: there are editor's notes remaining that should
>   be removed.
> - section D.1: "This section will provide some rationale for it and
>   provide hints on how to work around some scenarios."; they are
>   missing.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Hugo
> 
> --
> Hugo Haas - W3C
> mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Friday, 29 April 2005 23:05:30 GMT

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