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

RE: editorial comments on WSDL 2 part 2 - adjuncts - last call draft

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 12:34:20 -0800
Message-ID: <37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E89EC1D3@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>


Thanks for your comment.  The WS Description Working Group tracked this
as a Last Call comment LC329 [1].  We agreed to the improvements you
suggested, including dropping the paragraph.

If we don't hear otherwise within two weeks, we will assume this
satisfies your concern.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/issues.html#LC329

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jacek
Kopecky
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 11:50 AM
To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
Subject: editorial comments on WSDL 2 part 2 - adjuncts - last call
draft


Hi all,

here are some (IMHO) editorial comments on WSDL2 part 2 (Adjuncts) 2005
last call draft:


1) MAY is IMHO overly capitalized in many places and should be
lowercased: 3.1 (thus the operation MAY or MAY NOT be safe 8-) ); 4.1.1;
first in Accept headers in 6.3; 6.8.1; ednote in 6.9.1.1; double curly
brace in 6.9.1.1

My rule of thumb is to capitalize MAY where a reader could reasonably
expect MUST NOT or SHOULD NOT, like "the property MAY be empty", but not
where the may is kinda obvious, like "XML Schema MAY be used [in WSDL]".

My reason for dropping the capitalization is to make it easier for the
reader - they won't need to stop and think about the significance of
this particular MAY (like "should I have expected otherwise for some
reason?")


2) in 5.9.2, in the bullet, the word "added" seems to be missing before
"to the Binding...", or something other is missing in that sentence.


3) section 5 in the beginning (fourth para) points out how no defaults
are provided for faults so if an interface contains faults, it must be
bound explicitly. That's no longer true since we made code and subcodes
optional; that fourth paragraph from section 5 should be removed.


Best regards,

Jacek Kopecky
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2005 20:34:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:32 GMT