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

RE: XOP, MTOM and RRSHB editorial issues

From: <michael.mahan@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 10:53:37 -0800
Message-ID: <A5F46F7A688C084782E8C52B7636861302482AD3@sdebe101.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: <herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, <ylafon@w3.org>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Herve, Thanks for taking the time to validate the docs and find these issues. Yves, can you open a rec issue for these items? Lets discuss the issues and your proposed solutions on the next telecon.

Thx, Mike

>-----Original Message-----
>From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of ext Hervé Ruellan
>Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 6:20 AM
>To: xml-dist-app
>Subject: XOP, MTOM and RRSHB editorial issues
>
>
>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 18:53:56 GMT

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