Overview comments

http://www.w3.org/International/ws/ws-i18n-requirements-edit/Overview.html

Here are some comments on the overview doc. Sorry about the length, most
are minor editorial notes. However, if you don't have time to read all,
pls look at the section on the Requirements, as that may require
significant rewording.

1) The document margins are fixed width. Suggest making them a
percentage of the window width, so if the window is made thinner, the
margins are reduced and more of the window contains text (user needs to
scroll the window left/right less).

2) Title- suggest making it less ambiguous:
Requirements for Internationalization of Web Services

3) Editors- suggest adding company names to reward our sponsors...

4) Intro
should IRI be mentioned with URI?

5) Intro second para
This para raised a few questions for me:

"In the course of creating the [Web Service I18N Usage Scenarios], the
W3C Internationalization Working Group has discovered that, in order for
there to be complete interoperability, internationalization options must
be exposed in a consistent way in the messages exchanged between systems
using Web services and that Web service descriptions may need to
describe capabilities or limitations to potential users."

a) should we say the WS task force or leave it as i18n WG?

b) minor editorial nit but we didn't discover the requirements as much
as demonstrated or shown...

c) The key points should be brought out as bullets for emphasis and ease
of identification/reference.

I propose:
The W3C Internationalization Working Group demonstrated with
several scenarios [Web Service I18N Usage Scenarios] that
to achieve complete interoperability in Web Services,
internationalization must be considered and addressed.
In particular, to have world wide usability and utilization, web
services must:

1) expose language and culture-dependent options in the message
exchanges  between systems using Web services, and

2) describe internationalization capabilities and limitations to
potential users in Web service descriptions.

(I could see expanding with more bullets but than the intro becomes the
requirements list...)


6) Requirements
These do not strike me as requirements statements, which I expect to be
a problem statement for subsequent development documents to resolve.
These strike me as feature descriptions or solutions. Should these be
reworded to identify the requirement that needs to be satisfied?

For example, bullet #2 says:
A WSDL feature that describes the SOAP Feature in R001.

It is very hard for anyone to look at this and understand what we mean
by it,
and it is not a requirement statement. It is a solution to a
requirement.
(In fact, we need to define the "R001" syntax. I assume we mean the
first requirement. The doc needs to say so.)

I don't have time tonite to propose a rewording for all of these. Not
sure if I can do it by Friday either...

7) References
links need fixing. Where the document makes use of a reference, a link
to the reference item should be made. Currently there are none.

8) Acknowledgements
First para last word- change to "creation".

For the size of the doc, the acknowledgements is a bit lengthy. I would
eliminate the last sentence and if anyone deserves such acknowledgement
add them as an editor.

hth
tex

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tex Texin   cell: +1 781 789 1898   mailto:Tex@XenCraft.com
Xen Master                          http://www.i18nGuy.com
                         
XenCraft		            http://www.XenCraft.com
Making e-Business Work Around the World
-------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2003 04:31:11 UTC