- From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:59:57 -0700
- To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
I think they can be safely classed as editorial; if anyone believes differently they can bring it up as AOB on the next call. On 29/06/2005, at 12:24 PM, Jonathan Marsh wrote: > > I have an AI to respond to this comment, but it appears we have > dealt with the first two points, and not the editorial > clarifications requested in the last two points. Did we refer > those points to the editors? > > ________________________________ > > From: public-ws-addressing-comments-request@w3.org on behalf of > Jonathan Marsh > Sent: Fri 5/13/2005 7:13 AM > To: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org > Subject: WS Description WG comments on WS-A (editorial) > > > > > The Web Services Description WG reviewed the WS-A specs, and had these > editorial comments on Section 3 of the Core spec touching on > WSDL-related terminology: > > - "The basic interaction pattern from which all others are composed is > "one way"." It would be preferable to use "one way" in a manner > consistent with the use of the term for the WSDL 1.1 transmission > primitive - "One-way". > > - "Request Reply" is a common interaction pattern...." Likewise, it > would be preferable to use "Request Reply" in a manner consistent with > the use of the term for the WSDL 1.1 transmission primitive - > "Request-Response". > > - "...or to a particular WSDL MEP." Since this spec primarily > references > WSDL 1.1 transmission primitives, shouldn't this be consistently > worded > as "...or to a particular WSDL transmission primitive or MEP." (to > capture support of WSDL 1.1 and 2.0)? > > - In the description for [action], we have "...within a WSDL port > type." > Shouldn't this be consistently worded as "...within a WSDL port > type or > interface." (to capture support of WSDL 1.1 and 2.0)? > > These comments were compiled by Charlton Barretto, who also identified > other general editorial issues which we expect him to file separately. > Please accept our apologies for the tardiness of the above > comments, and > for our delay of Charlton's additional comments. > > Thank you. > Jonathan Marsh on behalf of the WS Description WG > > > > > > > -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems
Received on Friday, 1 July 2005 21:46:26 UTC