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

September ED snaptshot review comments

From: Ram Jeyaraman <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:19:23 +0000
To: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
CC: "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
Message-ID: <503546C5699C1144BDEA0D0DFFE7F881098308A0@TK5EX14MBXC119.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
MEX:


  Lines 7-9 in Example 2-3<http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/snapshots/20090902/wsmex-diff.html#GetMexReq> indicate this is a Get Metadata request.

Get Metadata should be GetMetadata.

Across all specs:


  This specification can be used in terms of XML Information Set (Infoset) [XML Infoset]<http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/snapshots/20090902/wsenum-diff.html#XMLInfoset> ,even though the specification uses XML 1.0 terminology. Valid Infoset for this specification are the one serializable in XML 1.0, hence the use of XML 1.0.

There is a missing space before ',even'.

  This specification can be used in terms of XML Information Set (Infoset) [XML Infoset]<http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/snapshots/20090902/wsmex-diff.html#XMLInfoset> ,even though the specification uses XML 1.0 terminology. Valid Infoset for this specification are the one serializable in XML 1.0, hence the use of XML 1.0.
Is the phrase "Valid Infoset for this specification are the one serializable in XML 1.0" well phrased?

The SOAP 1.1 fault body example is not formatted properly; the indentation is missing.

Thanks.
Received on Tuesday, 15 September 2009 19:20:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:18:13 GMT