- From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 18:14:59 +0200
- To: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org, Bob Freund <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>
- Cc: Paul.V.Biron@kp.org
- Message-ID: <20060419161459.GG29185@w3.org>
I am sending those comments on behalf of Paul Biron. Bob, can we please have those on Monday's agenda? > 1. The EPR abbrev is used without first defining it > > 1.1 It's too bad that XML Schema Component Designators > [http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-ref/] isn't farther along, because then > you wouldn't have had to invent your own syntax to do what they do :-( > > 2 Is it just me, or doesn't this section seem out of place, coming before > section 3? I would like the spec would read better with the current > section 2 & 3 reversed in order. > > 2.1 [address] is defined as an IRI but the description contains "...this > URI is used...". Shouldn't that says "...this IRI is used...]? This > happens in a few other places. The editors should carefully check all > uses of URI to insure that they shouldn't actually be IRI. > > 3 "The contract between the interacting parties may specify that multiple > or even a variable number of replies be delivered" should be "The contract > between the interacting parties MAY specify that multiple or even a > variable number of replies be delivered." The editors should check all > uses of "conformance verbs", to make sure they are capitalized > appropriately. > > 3.1 (and elsewhere) References are made to the WS-A WSDL Binding spec, > although that hasn't even reached CR yet...is that kosher according to the > process? I thought that a spec could only reference another spec if it was > no more than 1 step back in the process. Has that changed? > > 3.1 [relationship] In the abstract definitions it is unclear whether the > relationship type is the 1st or 2nd member of the pair. It is possible > that it doesn't really matter to define that at the abstract level...but > it would appear to be necessary. > > 3.1 [reference params] I'm sure there's a good reason but why isn't > [destination] and EPR? The presence of [ref params] (and it's description > as applying to [destination] )would seem to indicate that [dest] really is > an EPR and not "just" an IRI. Is the current model because of difficulty > binding "to" EPRs to common transports? I realize it is VERY late in the > process to change something this fundimental but it has always seemed odd > to me...sorry for not saying anything sooner. > > 3.2 minor nit: why do the abstract properties and infoset reps have > different names? Wouldn't it be less confusing for them to have the same > name? E.g., destination and wsa:To, source and wsa:From. As written, I > always have to perform a mental mapping between them. > > 3.2 section 3.4 describes the default for wsa:FaultTo as being > wsa:ReplyTo..and if wsa:ReplyTo is empty then it's a free-for-all. > Shouldn't this behavior be stated here? since the defaults of all the > other properties are described here. > > 3.2.1 why isn't comparison of [source], [reply endpoint] and [fault > endpoint] discussed? Regards, Hugo -- Hugo Haas - W3C mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Wednesday, 19 April 2006 16:15:09 UTC