- From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 18:01:28 -0800
- To: "W3C Public Archive" <www-archive@w3.org>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Nilo Mitra" <EUSNILM@am1.ericsson.se>, "Noah Mendelson" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
I've now read through Part 2. Here is a list of the things I noted, in the order they appear in the spec. Gudge 1. Section 1 The language we use for bullet 4 doesn't match the other bullets 2. Section 2.1 "this, if any" should read "thus, if any" 3. Section 3.1.1 We should put a cross-ref to Part 1 at the end of numbered bullet 2. 4. Section 3.1.6 "considered to be of unspecified size" should read "considered to have a single dimension of unspecified size" 5. Section 3.1.7 For consistency we should say the type is enc:valueType 6. Section 4 We should drop "only" from "not limited only to the SOAP HTTP Binding" 7. Section 4.2.2 First bullet should be removed ( left over text ) 8. Section 4.2.2 The numbered bullets use the term 'terminal node', but that term no longer exists in the data model. We should rewrite in terms of nodes with a lexical value. 9. Section 4.4 The language in the numbered bullets doesn't seem consistent with other language concerning infoset items 10. Section 5.1.1 First bullet has an example which is a QName ( should be a URI ) 11. Section 5.1.2 Diagram. Should the cloud with "Net" in it read "Network"?
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2002 21:02:01 UTC