W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > July 2002

RE: WSDL 1.2: Updated draft (June 30) - typos and minor errors

From: Liu, Kevin <kevin.liu@sap.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 02:44:47 +0200
Message-ID: <99CA63DD941EDC4EBA897048D9B0061DA951EA@uspalx20a.pal.sap-ag.de>
To: "'Sanjiva Weerawarana'" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Cc: "Jonathan Marsh (E-mail)" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>

Hi Sanjiva (et al), 

I caught a few typos and minor errors in the draft time-stamped "2002/07/01
14:06:26". 

Don't mean to be picky, and nothing below undermines the good work you have
done. - I know it's hard to catch such things when one has been working with
a document for a while, so just try to help. 

Regards, Kevin

MINOR/EDITORIAL ERRORS
>>>Section 2 (text above the box for "issue-require-targetnamspace")
indicates that targetNamespace is required, whereas section 1.2 (if we
decide to keep it) the grammar still shows that defintions@targetNamespace
is optional --- the ? after targetNamespace should be removed 

>>>Section 2 (text above the box for "issue-require-targetnamspace")  the
new text for targetNamespace is not very clean - maybe just for me. I
believe the resolution is to make defintion@targetNamespace required. All
children elements defined by this wsdl document belongs to this namespace. I
know we are talking about abstract model here, but if map to the wsdl
elements, the wording reads like wsdl1.2 requires that every individual
child elements, except type element,  have a targetNamespace attribute. I
don't believe that's what we meant. 

Again, this may be just my own interpretation, other people may interpret
differently. To avoid future confusion,  can we make the wording more
straight-forward?

>>>Section 2.3 paragraph 9 bullet 1 say "...one of the zero or more fault
messages MUST...". It sounds a little weird in the case of zero, should it
be changed to "...one of the listed fault messages MUST..."? 

>>>Section 2.6  indicates that "A service description component MUST contain
one or more port descriptions", whereas section 1.2 (if we decide to keep
it) the grammar shows that service may have zero or more port - the symbol *
should be changed to +

>>>Section 2.6 needs some clean up. There are some paragraphs duplicate or
even contradict with each other. For example, paragraph 4 and 6 both state
for port@name but makes different statements. paragraph 5 and 7 both refer
to "binding" property- seems paragraph 5 is wrong by saying "service" has a
binding property

>>>section 4 optional @required for extensibility elements- If I remember
right, the WG agreed that the value of this attribute is "false". Should it
be explicitly reflected in the spec?



TYPOS 

>>> section 2.2, paragraph 3: "a atomic entity" should be changed to "an
atomic entity"

>>> section 2.2 paragraph 6: "if a type system other that XML Schema..."
should be changed to "if a type system other than XML Schema..."

>>> section 3.2 paragraph 1: "WSDL uses the optional document elements..."
should be changed to "WSDL uses the optional documentation elements...". In
the last sentence of same paragraph, the font of "documentation" should be
changed to italic to be consistent with the rest of the spec

>>>section 3.3 paragraph 1, "by separationg the definitions ..." should be
changed to "by separating the definitions..."
 
I didn't dig into all sections for typos, you may just want to run a spell
check before publishing the spec.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 6:48 PM
To: WS-Desc WG (Public)
Subject: WSDL 1.2: Updated draft (June 30)



I have updated the draft to address the bug that Steve Tuecke
pointed out and also to add the related issue (see my reply to
Steve's mail).

Note that Phillippe has renamed the doc in preparation for
publication. The document is now avaialable at:
    
    http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12 

(Thanks Phillippe for this link.)

Bye,

Sanjiva.
Received on Monday, 1 July 2002 20:47:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:21 GMT