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

RE: Editorial last call review comments

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 13:15:37 +0200
To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1115896538.3333.32.camel@Kalb>

Jonathan, I see that some of the comments still apply to the latest
editor's drafts, therefore I'll go through them and resubmit those that
I feel should still be addressed.

This mail is just to meet the two weeks deadline for dissent, I'm sorry
that I cannot resubmit the still relevant comments yet.

Best regards,

Jacek

On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 16:15 -0700, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> Thank you for the comment below, and for your patience with us in
> resolving it.  We tracked the comment below as Issue LC51 [1].  The
> editors have addressed the editorial matters you highlight below in
> their latest drafts [2, 3].
> 
> 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#LC51
> [2] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html
> [3]
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.
> html
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc-
> > comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jacek Kopecky
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 5:44 AM
> > To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> > Subject: Editorial last call review comments
> > 
> > 
> > Hi all, finally reading (most of) the Last Call drafts of WSDL 2 I
> > have
> > the following editorial comments (at least I think they are
> > editorial).
> > 
> > Every comment starts with the number of the relevant section.
> > 
> > PART 1:
> > 
> > 2. "independent of any particular serialization" - should mention XML
> > 1.0/1.1 as rationale
> > 
> > 2.1.1 after "i.e. they define the [local name], [namespace name],
> > [children] and [attributes] properties of an element information item"
> > add that this is equivalent to XML Schema global element declarations.
> > Also might want to add the type definitions, i.e. they define the
> > [children] and [attributes] properties, because type definitions are
> > also relevant.
> > 
> > table 2.1 doesn't mention {type definitions}
> > 
> > 2.8.1 {value constraint} doesn't refer to {type definitions} - it is
> > the
> > only user thereof, so it probably should
> > 
> > 2.1.1 "The target namespace URI SHOULD point to a human or..." should
> > probably be combined with next sentence/paragraph because they are
> > closely related.
> > 
> > 2.3 faults should be moved after 2.4 operations, because it makes more
> > sense - operations are more important, right? Same in other listings
> > containing the two.
> > 
> > 2.4.1 {safety}: 2 references to web architecture redundant
> > 
> > 2.4.2 before bullet list the "MUST be" should be rephrased as "are"
> > 
> > 2.4.2.1 expand the acronym AII
> > 
> > 2.4.2.1 {rpc-signature} ... of type wsdls:QName (as defined in 2.15.4
> > anyURI type) - mismatch QName and 2.15.4 anyURI reference
> > 
> > 2.4.2.1 bullet 3 uses d0, d1, bullet 2 uses u0, u1 etc.
> > 
> > 2.7.1.1 missing fault reference components in second bullet list,
> > fault
> > reference components can also have f&p, right?
> > 
> > 2.7.1.1.1 "iso9001" *space* *comma* - drop the space
> > 
> > 2.13.2 note about service references at the end of the section
> > deserves
> > more visibility, like its own subsection on "reusing <service> type
> > for
> > service references"
> > 
> > appendix D must be finished
> > 
> > appendix D: services limited to single interface - split WSDL 1.1
> > services into multiple WSDL 2 services
> > 
> > appendix D: transformed RPC style and removed encoded use - don't use
> > latter, transform schema for former
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > PART 3:
> > 
> > 2.1: multiple cases of "??" lacking preceding closing double quote:
> > "xs:string??
> > 
> > 2.2 "identifying a soap binding" (should be "THE soap binding"?)
> > 
> > 2.6.2 should say {soap modules} is a set of SOAP Module components as
> > defined in 2.6.3.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > 
> >                    Jacek Kopecky
> > 
> >                    Ph.D. student researcher
> >                    Digital Enterprise Research Institute, Innsbruck
> >                    http://www.deri.org/
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2005 11:15:48 GMT

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