W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > December 2002

Editorial comments for Part 1, section 4-app A

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 12:06:34 -0800
Message-ID: <68B95AA1648D1840AB0083CC63E57AD6097C68E6@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Nilo Mitra" <EUSNILM@am1.ericsson.se>
Cc: "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, "David Fallside" <fallside@us.ibm.com>, <www-archive@w3.org>

General Comments

* We are inconsistent in the use of the term "SOAP message infoset".
Variants include

- SOAP message infoset
- SOAP Message Infoset
- SOAP envelope infosets
- SOAP XML Infoset
- Envelope XML infosets 

I would recommend: "SOAP message infoset"

* We are inconsistent in the use of the term "infoset" in places not
covered by the above. Variants include

- Infoset
- infoset
- XML Infoset
- XML infoset

I would recommend: "XML infoset"

* I assume the new namespace will be


Specific Comments

* S5.2.1, bullet 4: Add bullet for "relay" attribute information item

* S5.2.4, 3 (just after bullet list): xs:boolean should be marked

* S5.3 bullet list: Is it intentional that Body can't contain any
character II children even if header blocks and fault detail can?

* S5.3.1, bullet 1: Why do we have a namespace note on the body child
elements descendents but not on header block descendents? Also, the
former says "MAY" namespace qualify whereas the latter says "SHOULD".
Shouldn't we be consistent?

* S5.4, P2 (just after bullet list): Change "only child of the SOAP
Body" with "only child of the SOAP Body element information item"

*, P1: Change "TheSupportedEnvelope" to "The SupportedEnvelope"

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
Received on Monday, 9 December 2002 15:07:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:42:17 UTC