- From: Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:04:42 -0700
- To: "SOAP/JMS (list)" <public-soap-jms@w3.org>
OK, so going over the specification http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms.html http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms.html?rev=1.11&content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8 carefully for the FPWD decision, I noticed the following: Section 1.4: The table shows the row with prefix "xsd" in a different font from the other prefixes. Section 2.1: When we make the change to put in the specific JMS calls, then the word "implicitly" in the first sentence here makes no sense. Suggested change: "... and the JMS calls (or their equivalents) that a conforming implementation ought to make." Section 2.4: The sentence: "The encoding will depend on whether the payload is simply a SOAP Envelope or whether there are any attachments, and the JMS "contentType" property 2.2.3 JMS Message properties will reflect this appropriately." should probably link directly to the contentType property, in the same way that other parts of the document link back to properties. Section 2.6.1.1, 2.6.2.3: "api" --> "API". Section 2.6.2: "The following subsections describe each state in more detail and apply to both SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2 unless stated otherwise." Strike the "unless..." --> "The following subsections describe each state in more detail and apply to both SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2." There are no qualifiers in the subsequent text that make this "unless" clause relevant. Section 2.7.2: Some URLs here are not monospaced, in contrast to all other URLs in the body of the document. -Eric.
Received on Monday, 7 July 2008 18:05:05 UTC