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

RE: Few more (significant) edits

From: Asir Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 08:48:48 -0700
Message-ID: <5B10E50E14A4594EB1B5566B69AD94072EF697@maileast>
To: 'Amelia A Lewis' <alewis@tibco.com>, Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org

Please see,
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0361.html

Asir

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Amelia A Lewis
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 11:43 AM
To: Glen Daniels
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Re: Few more (significant) edits



SUMMARY: all actions specified by Glen committed, except text that he now
owes me.  Details are below for some actions.

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 21:07:15 -0400
Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com> wrote:
> * Missed this before - section 3.1.4 (the AD Module) should actually be
> promoted to section 3.2, with appropriate promoting of subsections.

DONE.

> * We decided to accept the abstract ad:mustUnderstand attribute on the
> schema instead of using the soap-specific one.  This change was never
> actually made to the proposal!  This requires some surgery.  On the
> bright side, it simplifies the schema for the example "isGoldClubMember"
> element:
> 
>     <element name="isGoldClubMember"
>              type="xs:boolean"
>              ad:mustUnderstand="true"/>

DONE.

> I can do this in a number of ways.  1) I can write you the text, 2) you
> can hand me the XML and I'll edit and hand back to you, 3) you can sign
> me up as a part 2 editor and I could edit it in CVS.  I'm OK with any of
> those, let me know.

Write me text, please.  We need this as close to immediately as possible,
in order to include it in Last Call.

I already cut the last clause of the last sentence (mentioning soap
mustUnderstand) in the description.

> * "as defined in the Application Data feature" (what is currently sec
> 3.1.4.2), the words "Application Data feature" should link to section
> 3.2.

DONE.
 
> * Other places in the document single-quote URIs.  I would suggest doing
> the same for the feature/property URIs in section 3.  In fact, I think
> it might look better if we actually  bolded or italicized these URIs -
> is there any precedent for that?

I can change the quote style.  Otherwise, bold or italic sounds like a
stylesheet issue, so bring up presentation issues with the Guardians of
Presentation Beauty (which is I-don't-know-who-only-it-isn't-me).

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Thursday, 29 July 2004 11:52:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:32 GMT