W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlp-comments@w3.org > April 2002

FW: SOAP Primer Review

From: Nilo Mitra (EMX) <Nilo.Mitra@am1.ericsson.se>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:33:50 -0500
Message-ID: <C358DED30DFED41192E100508BB3922701EE79D1@eamrcnt716.exu.ericsson.se>
To: "'xmlp-comments@w3.org'" <xmlp-comments@w3.org>
originator didn't send his response to xmlp-comments. i'm forwarding for the record.
nilo

-----Original Message-----
From: Marcel [mailto:marcel_jemio@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 5:39 PM
To: Nilo Mitra (EMX)
Subject: RE: SOAP Primer Review


Thank you Nilo for your feedback - mine is inline below...

Regards,
-Marcel

--- "Nilo Mitra (EMX)" <Nilo.Mitra@am1.ericsson.se> wrote:
> Hello Marcel"
> Thanks for your comments. If you look at the latest editor's copy [1], you will see that most of
> your comments have been addressed, particularly those on spelling. For the others, I have
> provided comments below on how I have handled them (deleting all inessential details). My
> comments are preceded by "NM:" Please let me know you have concerns about the resolution of
> these.
> Thanks
> Nilo 
> [1]http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/01/29/edcopy-soap12-part0-20020129.html
> 
> > 
> > reviewed:
> > SOAP Version 1.2 Part 0: Primer
> > W3C Working Draft 17 December 2001
> > 
> > 
> > Comments:
> > 
> > 1. 1 Introduction - first para, first sentence - same as the 
> > last para,
> > first sentence
> 
> NM: Not in the latest editor's version.
> 
> > 2. 1.1 Overview - there isn't a "Section 1"
> 
> NM; Don't know what you mean. Please explain.
> 

Fixed...

> > 3. 2.1 SOAP Messages - "A header is optional, but we have chosen to
> > included it in our example." - it should be "include"
> 
> NM: Done.
> 
> > 4. 2.1 SOAP Messages - "...which seems to imply that this..."  I don't
> > recall a "imply" verbage in other Primer's but I could be mistaken...
> 
> NM: "imply" because it isn't spelled out explicitly and is of the form of best practices.
> 
> > 5. 2.1 SOAP Messages - "...and represent some logical 
> > grouping..." - remove
> > "some"
> 
> NM: Not done. Would "a" be preferable?
> 
Yes. thank you.

> > 6. 2.2 SOAP Processing Model - name of example should be more 
> > verbose and
> > less cryptic
> 
> NM: If by "name" you mean the "subject" as shown in the last line, it is meant to provide some
> hint on the example, but not to substitute for reading the text.
> 
> 
OK. thank you.

> > 7. 2.2 SOAP Processing Model  - "The thrid header block"  - should be
> > "third"
> 
> NM: Done.
> 
> > 8. 2.2 SOAP Processing Model  - "the header blockk 
> > aThirdBlock" - should be
> > "third"
> 
> NM: I don't understand. Perhaps you are correcting the misspelling "blockk'
> 
Yes. thank you.

> > 9. 2.2 SOAP Processing Model  - The primer might want to be 
> > explicit about
> > not having a "actor" attribute value of "none" and a 
> > mustUnderstand value
> > of "true"
> 
> NM: Actually, the primer does not want to spell out all the edge cases. As this is allowed by
> the main specs, it is better for the primer, at this level, not to mandate or deny something.
> 
Ok. thank you.

> > 10. 2.2 SOAP Processing Model  - The primer might want to be explicit
> > example 1ter and the "actor" value of "next" and whether the final
> > recipient of the SOAP message actually processes the "anotherBlock" -
> > currently it just states: "It may process the header block 
> > anotherBlock, as
> > it is targeted at itself (in the role of "next") but it is 
> > not mandatory to
> > do so if the specifications for processing the blocks do not 
> > demand it."  I
> > refer to the "specification..." part - is this referring to a 
> > TPA or is it
> > referring to the final REC of SOAP? - can't tell by what is written
> 
> NM: I'm fraid i don't know the acronym "TPA" but i think the text is quite clear:
> "specifications for processing the blocks" cannot be the SOAP spec. Much has been already
> written about how the SOAp spec says nothing about the processing of blocks.
> 
> 
T_rading P_artner A_greement.  OK  thank you.

> > 11. 2.3.2 - a few paragraphs in... "One possiblity is that such a URI
> > identifying the target is carried in a SOAP header block. 
> > Some protocol
> > bindings, such as HTTP, offer a mechanism for carrying the 
> > URI. " - should
> > be "possibility"
> > 12. 2.4 Fault Scenarios - "was the unlimate recipient of the 
> > message which
> > did so" should be "ultimate"
> 
> NM: Both corrected.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2002 16:33:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:27 GMT