Re: Some editorial issues with the Metadata document

This is good, but I think what's missing here and elsewhere is which
variables are independent and which are dependent.  I think in this case
the first two are independent and the last dependent.

Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 15:07 -0500, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
>> On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 11:49 -0500, David Hull wrote:
>> >     * I believe this has already been done to death, but my $0.02 on
>> >       table 3-1 is that it's not immediately clear what "REQUIRED"
>> >       means.  I'd naively  think it meant that the MAPs are required,
>> >       but that seems redundant in the row marked "yes" for MAPs in input
>> >       message.  From the subsequent text I gather it means "you have to
>> >       include the required MAPs."  Since the requirements are clearly
>> >       spelled out in section 5, perhaps "see section 5", or "as per
>> >       section 5" or such might be clearer.
>>
>> The table is mixing several information making it difficult to read.
>>     
>   
> The table format was lost in my message, so here is the table in HTML:
> *wsdl:required*  *MAPs in Input message?*  *MAPs in Output message?*
> true  Yes  Yes
> true  No  The endpoint MUST generate a SOAP Fault.
> false  Yes  Yes
> false  No  Optional. If using SOAP, MAP headers MUST NOT have a
> soap:mustUnderstand attribute with a value of "true"
>
>
> Philippe
>

Received on Monday, 8 January 2007 20:34:31 UTC