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

RE: Editorial comments for Part 1, section 4-app A

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 22:35:19 -0800
Message-ID: <68B95AA1648D1840AB0083CC63E57AD609803494@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>


Status: All done except question pending mail

>>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"
>
>Just do it

Done

>>* 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"

Done

>Just do it
>
>>* I assume the new namespace will be
>>
>>	http://www.w3.org/2002/12/*
>
>Update after we move the spec into new location

Pending

>>Specific Comments
>>-----------------
>>
>>* S5.2.1, bullet 4: Add bullet for "relay" attribute information item
>
>Same as Gudge's point. Just do it.

Done

>>* S5.2.4, 3 (just after bullet list): xs:boolean should be
>>marked (italic)
>
>Just do it 

Done

>>* S5.3 bullet list: Is it intentional that Body can't contain
>>any character II children even if header blocks and fault detail can?
>
>Ask the WG. Should detail and body be the same? Ok that header 
>block is different. Henrik to send mail.

Pending mail

>>* 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?
>
>It's ok as is.

Ok

>>* S5.4, P2 (just after bullet list): Change "only child of the
>>SOAP Body" with "only child of the SOAP Body element information item"
>
>It should say only child element II of the body EII

Done

>>* 5.4.7.2, P1: Change "TheSupportedEnvelope" to "The 
>SupportedEnvelope"
>
>Just do it.

Done

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com
Received on Tuesday, 10 December 2002 01:35:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:24 GMT