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

Re: Other suggested editorial changes

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 00:33:37 +0600
Message-ID: <0fea01c40c4e$60ad77a0$02c8a8c0@watson.ibm.com>
To: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>, "Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Just committed .. sorry 'bout the delay. See below tho.

From: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>
> The following are other editorial changes
>
> 1. Some text in 2.1.2 about the intent of the targetNamespace overlaps
text
> in 2.1.1, and would be better merged into the same paragraph.
> In particular, I suggest that we move the following text from 2.1.2:
> [[
>          The target namespace represents an unambiguous name for the
>          intended semantics of the WSDL Infoset. The targetNamespace URI
>          SHOULD point to a human or machine processable document that
>          directly or indirectly defines the semantics of the WSDL
>          Infoset.
> ]]
> to merge it in with existing paragraph in the note of 2.1.1, which
> currently says:
> [[
>          The components directly defined within a single Definitions
>         component are said to belong to the same <emph>target
>         namespace</emph>. The target namespace therefore groups a set
>         of related component definitions and provides a hint of the
>         intended semantics of the components.
> ]]
> such that the existing paragraph in 2.1.1 becomes:
> [[
>          The components directly defined within a single Definitions
>         component are said to belong to the same <emph>target
>         namespace</emph>. The target namespace therefore groups a set
>         of related component definitions and represents an unambiguous
>          name for the
>          intended semantics of the components. The targetNamespace URI
>          SHOULD point to a human or machine processable document that
>          directly or indirectly defines the intended semantics of
> those  components.
> ]]

Done.

> 2. In section "2.2.1 The Interface Component":
> s/set of messages/sequence of messages/g

Done.

> 3. We should clearly say that any paragraph marked "Note" is
> non-normative.  I suggest using the term "Non-normative Note" instead of
> just "Note" to mark each Note.

Can we do this with a stylesheet change? I have not dealt with this.

> 4. Sec 2.3.1.1.1:
> s/map between a message and a signature/map between a message type and a
> signature/

Not done as its not there any more; can you verify that that's ok ??

Thanks,

Sanjiva.
Received on Wednesday, 17 March 2004 13:34:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:30 GMT