W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2006

XOP, MTOM and RRSHB editorial issues

From: Hervé Ruellan <herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 15:20:08 +0100
To: xml-dist-app <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-id: <44182298.50106@crf.canon.fr>

Dear all,

While looking at the XOP recommendation [1], I noticed a few editorial 
bugs/things to do.
I also noticed some editorial problems in the MTOM recommendation [2].

Here is the list of issues with proposed solutions.

1. Spurious '>'
---------------
In the xop prefix notes table cell, in 1.3 Notational Conventions, there 
are several '>' characters that should not be there.

Solution:
Remove those characters.

2. xmlmime URI in XOP
---------------------
The Describing Media Content of Binary Data in XML document is now 
published as a WG Note. We should update the XOP recommendation accordingly.

Solution:
Replace xmlmime by xmime (9 occurences).
Replace http://www.w3.org/2004/11/xmlmime by 
http://www.w3.org/2005/05/xmlmime (3 occurences).
Remove the Editorial note in 1.3
Update the reference in B.1 Normative References.

3. xmlmime URI in RRSHB
---------------------
The Describing Media Content of Binary Data in XML document is now 
published as a WG Note. We should update the RRSHB recommendation 
accordingly.

Solution:
Replace xmlmime by xmime (6 occurences).
Replace http://www.w3.org/2004/11/xmlmime by 
http://www.w3.org/2005/05/xmlmime (3 occurences).
Update the reference in A References.

4. Schema for http://www.w3.org/2004/08/representation
------------------------------------------------------
In 1.1 Notational Conventions, the description of the rep prefix refers 
to the schema document by naming the link TBD. Moreover, the document 
linked is not a schema document.

Solution:
Change TBD to http://www.w3.org/2004/08/representation
Change the document to be the actual schema (do we ever write this schema?).

5. Normative schema for RRSHB
-----------------------------
In both MTOM 1.1 Notational Conventions and RRSHB [3] 1.1 Notational 
Conventions, we speak of the *normative* schema for RRSHB. Was it really 
our intention? From my understanding, the group position was that 
defining in two normative way the same thing was dangerous and that 
having informative schema was better.

Solution:
Declare the RRSHB schema to be non-normative.

Best regards,

Hervé.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xop10/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-mtom/
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-rep/
Received on Wednesday, 15 March 2006 14:20:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:21 GMT