RE: Action-90 Review

Let's take one instance:

>such as Optional Assertions

Prior to Nov 9th, this was in section 5.5. Today, it is in split into
two sections: 4.5.1 and 4.5.2.

(If you CVS compare Guidelines XML document revisions 1.10 and 1.19,
you'll see the actual changes.)

Regards,
 
Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation


-----Original Message-----
From: Yalcinalp, Umit [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@sap.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 9:10 PM
To: Frederick Hirsch; Asir Vedamuthu
Cc: public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org
Subject: RE: Action-90 Review

I looked at the document that Asir has generated. 

I am very confused at something. Why are those sections that we hava
agreed text on
such as Optional Assertions, Self Describing Messages, etc. are
appearing as new text? I also noticed that the section content changed a
bit. So, I am wondering whether there is a problem with the diff tool or
are we moving sections around. 

Could someone explain this? 

--umit



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Frederick Hirsch
> Sent: Wednesday, Nov 29, 2006 8:07 PM
> To: ext Asir Vedamuthu
> Cc: Frederick Hirsch; public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Action-90 Review
> 
> 
> Thanks for noting these editorial issues.
> 
> I have corrected all of these as part of this editorial pass, with  
> the following exceptions:
> 
> > 4.5.2 Optional behavior at runtime
> >
> > s/Leaving the semantics undescribed/Leaving the semantics 
> not or under
> > specified/
> 
> changed to "Leaving the semantics not specified or incompletely  
> specified"
> 
> > s/See also 4.3.3 Self Describing Messages . /See also 4.3.3 Self
> > Describing Messages./
> 
> Issue here seems to be in the specref target, so I didn't touch this  
> since it could break elsewhere.
>   "See also <specref ref="self-describing"/>."
> 
> regards, Frederick
> 
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
> 
> 
> On Nov 29, 2006, at 9:10 PM, ext Asir Vedamuthu wrote:
> 
> > ACTION-90 [1] - Review Action 77 snapshot (document is at
> > http://tinyurl.com/yjpbyf
> >
> > Please find below suggestions to fix typos, grammar and spaces. I
> > request other editors to review Action 77 snapshot at
> > http://tinyurl.com/yjpbyf
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/90
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Asir S Vedamuthu
> > Microsoft Corporation
> >
> >
> > ----- Notation Used -----
> >
> > s/Mary/Marie/ Change most recent occurrence of "Mary" to 
> "Marie". The
> > old string is currently treated as a literal string -- not a regex.
> >
> > s/Mary/Marie/G Change all previous and future occurrences 
> of "Mary" to
> > "Marie" (within this document).
> >
> >
> > ----- Typos, Grammar and Spaces for Action 77 -----
> >
> > Table of Contents:
> >
> > s/parameters vs nesting/parameters vs. nesting/
> >
> >
> > 1. Introduction
> >
> > s/consistent compinations/consistent combinations/
> > s/metadata exxpression/metadata expression/
> > s/Web Services Policy 1.5 - Guidelines for Policy Assertion 
> Authors  
> > is a
> > resource primarily for assertion authors that provides guidelines  
> > on the
> > use of Web/Web Services Policy 1.5 - Guidelines for Policy Assertion
> > Authors is a resource primarily for assertion authors and provides
> > guidelines on the use of Web/
> >
> >
> > 3.1.1 WS-Policy Authors
> >
> > s/WS-SecurityPolicy pecification/WS-SecurityPolicy specification/
> >
> >
> > 3.1.3 Providers
> >
> > s/policies it is uesful/policies it is useful/
> >
> >
> > 4. General Guidelines for WS-Policy Assertion Authors
> >
> > s/validation in their desgin/validation in their design/
> > s/relies on the Qname/relies on the QName/
> > s/provides somes/provides some/
> >
> >
> > 4.1 Assertions and Their Target Use
> >
> > s/Once the range of policy subjects are/Once the range of policy
> > subjects is/
> > s/A eferencing mechanism/A referencing mechanism/
> >
> >
> > 4.2 Authoring Styles
> >
> > s/the @optional attribute/the wsp:optional attribute/
> >
> >
> > 4.3.1 Minimal Approach
> >
> > s/a way that eflects/a way that effects/
> >
> >
> > 4.3.3 Self Describing Messages
> >
> > s/when messages can not/when messages cannot/
> > s/Best practice:Policy/Best practice: Policy/
> >
> >
> > 4.3.4 Single Domains
> >
> > s/some might say its/some might say it is/
> >
> >
> > 4.4.2 Nested Assertions
> >
> > s/Thesp:AlgorithmSuite assertion/The sp:AlgorithmSuite assertion/
> > s/Setting aside the details of using transport-level security,,/ 
> > Setting
> > aside the details of using transport-level security,/
> >
> >
> > 4.4.3 Considerations for choosing parameters vs. nesting
> >
> > s/for selecting parameters or nesting of assertions,/for selecting
> > parameters or nesting of assertions/
> >
> >
> > 4.5.1 Optional behavior in Compact authoring
> >
> > s/using wsp:optional attribute/using wsp:Optional attribute/
> >
> >
> > 4.5.2 Optional behavior at runtime
> >
> > s/Note that in order for an optional behaviors to be 
> engaged/Note that
> > in order for an optional behavior to be engaged/
> > s/[4.3.3 Self Describing Messages ]/[4.3.3 Self Describing 
> Messages]/
> > s/specific endpoint when optional behavior is engaged ./specific
> > endpoint when optional behavior is engaged./
> > s/Leaving the semantics undescribed/Leaving the semantics 
> not or under
> > specified/
> > s/policy assertion authors should consider to describe/policy  
> > assertion
> > authors should consider describing/
> > s/See also 4.3.3 Self Describing Messages . /See also 4.3.3 Self
> > Describing Messages./
> >
> >
> > 4.6 Typing Assertions
> >
> > s/(endpoints) or artifacts ( messages)/(endpoints) or artifacts
> > (messages)/
> > s/indicates which Qnames/indicates which QNames/
> >
> >
> > 4.7 Levels of Abstraction in WSDL
> >
> > s/This resulted in the finer granularity of the assertion 
> to apply at
> > the message policy subject, but the assertion semantics 
> also indicates
> > that the if the senders choose to engage RM semantics (although not
> > specified via attachment in WSDL at incoming messages), the 
> providers
> > will honor the engagement of RM./This resulted in the finer  
> > granularity
> > of the assertion to apply at the message policy subject, but the
> > assertion semantics also indicates that if a sender chose 
> to engage RM
> > semantics (although not specified via attachment in WSDL at incoming
> > messages), the providers will honor the engagement of RM./
> >
> >
> > 6. Inter-domain Policy and Composition Issues
> >
> > s/, utilization of WS-Security Policy with other protocols affect/,
> > utilization of WS-Security Policy with other protocols affects/
> >
> >
> > 7.3 Appropriate Attachment: Identifying Assertion Sources
> >
> > s/( in WSDL, the source/(in WSDL, the source/
> > s/( using WS-Trust)/(using WS-Trust)/
> >
> >
> > 8. Scenario and a worked example
> >
> > s/CompanyA/Company A/G
> > s/( Policy, All and ExactlyOne)/(Policy, All and ExactlyOne)/
> > s/ProfileA/Profile A/G
> > s/( not expanded)/(not expanded)/
> > s/Since CompanyA has decided to use well known policy 
> expressions that
> > are themselves part of a specification/Since CompanyA has decided  
> > to use
> > well known policy expressions that are part of a specification/
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 30 November 2006 06:35:59 UTC