W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > April 2005

working on part1 editorial action items

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 17:51:22 +0600
Message-ID: <031801c538ac$0b801180$caa53109@LANKABOOK>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I have done the following editorial AIs. Will commit when I get to the
hotel (on a plane now):

- LC1: remove @required from wsdl:property
- LC3: {namespace name} property - fixed by changing the exemplar
       wording as we've changed the spec now (section 2.19)
- LC5a: XML 1.1 serialization doesn't have to be supported
- LC5b: move discussion of document validity in notational conventions
- LC75v: remove processor conformance
- LC5{d,e,f,g,i,j,k}: NOT APPLICABLE
- LC5l: don't confuse users (duh)
- LC6a: rename {name} of wsdl:property & wsdl:feature to {uri}
        ARTHUR: DIDN'T SEE ANY OBVIOUS WAY TO UPDATE THE Z.
- LC7: ARGH. Lots of editorial fixes. Thanks for the detailed read tho!!
    a: moved inside notational conventions
    b: it does; see paras 1 & 2
    c: no; WG rejected this a while back
    d: will take it under advisement and do it incrementally
    e: someone has fixed this
    f: I don't think this makes sense; pls re-raise if needed
    g: done
    h: no; components are not defer'ed with xpointer
    i: no inlined examples per wg decision. eg in 2.7.1.1.1 does
       define stuff to be in the wsdl NS. schema loc of eg in C.4 fixed.
    j: done
    k: PART 3 EDITORS PLEASE CHECK!
    l: PART 3 ..
    m: done
    n: N/A?
    o: N/A?
    p: done
    q: done
    r: CAN A SCHEMA WONK FIX PLEASE?
    s: CAN A SCHEMA WONK FIX PLEASE?
    t: huh? isn't that generated??
    u: fixed already?
- LC9: someone did this already?
- LC14: done
- LC16: done
- LC18: done by needs checking by Glen ad Asir
- LC21: N/A (replaced by LC106 and in any case now part3 only)
- LC23: seems to be done already; the wording in the draft is soft
- LC26: I don't see anything wrong with the wording. It says that
    if someone refers to a WSDL thing by QName in another doc (like
    BPEL say) then it would be useful to be able to indicate where
    WSDL info for that namespace is located. What's wrong with that?
- LC29b: dup of LC18?
- LC52b: done 
- LC61a: No work for part1; someone has already done this
- LC65: done
- LC66: done
- LC67: done
- LC68: removed the offending sentence. What that meant was that 
    each schema lang that's lexically contained in wsdl must define
    its own "wrapper" (like we have for xsd:schema). That sentence
    was out of place at best as the section is already about XSD 
    and hence it doesn't make sense to refer to general stuff there.
- LC70: done
- LC75b: already done (for another issue earlier)

The following require clarification (or I didn't understand something):
- LC34b: what does the AI to part1 editors have to do with the issue?
- LC74g: can't find it

The following appear to be mis-classified as part1 issues:
- LC17: HTTP binding?
- LC75h: part3 (RPC style)

Battery's about to die and I'm tired .. time to quit.

Jonathan, would appreciate if you could update the LC AI list. 
If you want me to do it let me know (not sure what protocol you've
been following so far).

Sanjiva.
Received on Monday, 4 April 2005 00:20:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:35 GMT