RE: Possible erratum candidates

These are all in Bugzilla now:

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?query_format=specific&order=releva
nce+desc&bug_status=__open__&product=WSDL&content=

I only had time to add a few proposed resolutions to the few that didn't
imply one.

- 4227, 4431, 4436  are editorial but need a proposed resolution.
- 4225, 4430, 4432 require more investigation.

Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Jean-Jacques Moreau
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 9:43 AM
> To: WSD Private
> Subject: Possible erratum candidates
> 
> As per my action item, I've extracted from my earlier annotated
> versions of Part 1 & Part 2 possible erratum candidates. Specifically,
> I've trimmed down the Word document to show only the incriminated
> sentences/paragraphs.
> 
> Jonathan, would you fancy adding them to Bugzilla, using the format
> that you think is most suitable?
> 
> JJ.