W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-resource-access@w3.org > February 2009

Re: RA WD Spec Issues

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:40:18 -0500
To: Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>
Cc: "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>, public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFC526443F.6E8D20BE-ON8525755B.00021938-8525755B.0003BBE3@us.ibm.com>
comments inline.

STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com

Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
02/11/2009 04:58 PM

"public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>

RA WD Spec Issues

Hi all,
We have been reviewing the five working drafts, and while this will be an 
on-going process over the course of the coming week, in the interests of 
having information in a timely manner, we are providing feedback as early 
as possible.  So far we have only carefully evaluated the Eventing spec, 
but a number of comments below will apply to all other specs.  We are 
assuming it is best to send these WD issues to the mailing list rather 
than enter each in bugzilla, although we have not seen others submit WD 
issues yet.  Are others also reviewing these specs?
Hope this helps,
Eventing spec and some more general Issues
1.      The link for ?This version? (
http://www.w3.org/WS-RA/WS-Eventing/20090121) does not resolve.  Is the 
link correct?
<dug> I'm assuming this will be resolved when its published </dug>

2.      The Working Draft Date says ?21 January 2009? ? should say XX 
February 2009.
<dug> ditto </dug>

3.      In the status section of each spec, there should be a statement 
that explains the intent of this working draft.  Perhaps something along 
the lines of:  This working draft is meant only as a direct translation of 
the submitted spec into W3C format.  There are many issues in the working 
group that will cause changes to this draft.  Please see working group 
issue list.
<dug> I'll let the WG decide this - given its a working draft it seems 
obvious that there are still open issues  :-)  </dug>

4.      There should be mention in the status section that the 
acknowledgement section is yet to be updated.
<dug> Added "TBD" to the acks section for all specs </dug>

5.      It would appear that the public archive link in the status section 
of each spec is not correct.
<dug> hmm, Yves, will this URL work later or did we grab the wrong URL? 

6.      In the status section, it says:
?This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by 
other documents at any time.?
Not sure if obsoleted is actually a word, suggest:
?This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or made obsolete by 
other documents at any time.?
<dug> WG should decide, this text is the same as what was in WSA </dug>

7.      In the XML namespaces section, at the bottom, there is a spelling 
mistake: ?implementationc? should be ?implementations? ? probably in all 
<dug> fixed - all specs </dug>

8.      Eventing, section 2.2 ?
http://www.w3.org/2009/02/ws-evt/DeliveryModes/Wrap? needs to resolve to 
<dug> I'm assuming this will fix itself once we publish, Yves?  </dug>

9.      Eventing section 4.2 ? the link ?4.1 Subscribe ? has an extra 
space in it at the end.  This happens in both occurrences in this section.
10.   Eventing section 4.3 ? the 2 links ?4.2 Renew ? have an extra space 
in them.
11.   Eventing section 4.4 ? the link ?4.2 Renew ? has an extra space.
12.   Eventing section 4.5 ? extra space in ?4.1 Subscribe ? also period 
inside of ?)? instead of outside.
<dug> all of the above "space" issues are fixed - for all specs  - and the 
.) for ws-eventing</dug>

13.   Eventing Appendix B says: 
?A normative copy of the XML Schema [XML Schema, Part 1] , [XML Schema, 
Part 2] for this specification may be retrieved by resolving the XML 
namespace URI for this specification (listed in 3.2 XML Namespaces ).?
Will that be true?  What will be resolved at: 
http://www.w3.org/2009/02/ws-evt ?
We hope it will resolve to the actual namespace document.
We also hope that some link will be available that resolves to the schema 
Note also extra space in link name.
<dug> WG to decide - but won't the ns url resolve to a rddl doc and from 
there people will be able to get to the xsd and wsdl?  so isn't that 
statement correct (indirectly)? But this asks the question of how many 
fixes we should do vs just a translation?</dug>

14.   Eventing Appendix C says: 
?A normative copy of the WSDL [WSDL 1.1] description can be retrieved from 
the following address:
Is that true?  We hope it will resolve to the actual WSDL document.
<dug> once we publish I hope so </dug>
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 00:41:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:46 UTC