W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > January 2004

RE: WSDL Specification readability: formulaic text

From: Yaron Goland <ygoland@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:13:24 -0800
To: "'Amelia A Lewis'" <alewis@tibco.com>, "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <050301c3e5eb$f33b2240$65e5e40c@bea.com>

There is no suggestion being made that the text would not be normative. This
is simply an organizational request. The formulaic text can all be nicely
collected together into its own section with a big 'Normative' title on it.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Amelia A Lewis
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 11:35 AM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: WSDL Specification readability: formulaic text
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 27, 2004, at 2:43 AM, David Orchard wrote:
>
> >
> > The WSDL specs contains a lot of formulaic text, making
> them harder to
> > read
> > than they could be. A lot of the infoset related data could
> be easily
> > moved
>
> Actually, it can't.  The spec is formally defined in terms of the
> infoset.  So it's normative, and belongs in the normative part.
>
> It would be nice if specifications were generally very
> readable, but it
> isn't particularly important.  It *is* important to almost all
> specification writers that the result be precise and completely
> unambiguous.
>
> We have a tutorial for narrative and discursive introduction and
> explanation.  That seems a likelier place to expend energies
> on making
> it maximally accessible.
>
> All my opinion, of course.
>
> Amy!
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2004 17:13:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:28 GMT