RE: Editorial last call review comments

Thank you for the comment below, and for your patience with us in
resolving it.  We tracked the comment below as Issue LC51 [1].  The
editors have addressed the editorial matters you highlight below in
their latest drafts [2, 3].

If you agree with our disposition of your comment, we'd like you to
acknowledge it within two weeks; otherwise we will assume you are
satisfied.  The WG plans to enter a second (short) Last Call period in
the near future, and we invite you to review that publication as well.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC51
[2] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html
[3]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.
html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jacek Kopecky
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 5:44 AM
> To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Editorial last call review comments
> 
> 
> Hi all, finally reading (most of) the Last Call drafts of WSDL 2 I
> have
> the following editorial comments (at least I think they are
> editorial).
> 
> Every comment starts with the number of the relevant section.
> 
> PART 1:
> 
> 2. "independent of any particular serialization" - should mention XML
> 1.0/1.1 as rationale
> 
> 2.1.1 after "i.e. they define the [local name], [namespace name],
> [children] and [attributes] properties of an element information item"
> add that this is equivalent to XML Schema global element declarations.
> Also might want to add the type definitions, i.e. they define the
> [children] and [attributes] properties, because type definitions are
> also relevant.
> 
> table 2.1 doesn't mention {type definitions}
> 
> 2.8.1 {value constraint} doesn't refer to {type definitions} - it is
> the
> only user thereof, so it probably should
> 
> 2.1.1 "The target namespace URI SHOULD point to a human or..." should
> probably be combined with next sentence/paragraph because they are
> closely related.
> 
> 2.3 faults should be moved after 2.4 operations, because it makes more
> sense - operations are more important, right? Same in other listings
> containing the two.
> 
> 2.4.1 {safety}: 2 references to web architecture redundant
> 
> 2.4.2 before bullet list the "MUST be" should be rephrased as "are"
> 
> 2.4.2.1 expand the acronym AII
> 
> 2.4.2.1 {rpc-signature} ... of type wsdls:QName (as defined in 2.15.4
> anyURI type) - mismatch QName and 2.15.4 anyURI reference
> 
> 2.4.2.1 bullet 3 uses d0, d1, bullet 2 uses u0, u1 etc.
> 
> 2.7.1.1 missing fault reference components in second bullet list,
> fault
> reference components can also have f&p, right?
> 
> 2.7.1.1.1 "iso9001" *space* *comma* - drop the space
> 
> 2.13.2 note about service references at the end of the section
> deserves
> more visibility, like its own subsection on "reusing <service> type
> for
> service references"
> 
> appendix D must be finished
> 
> appendix D: services limited to single interface - split WSDL 1.1
> services into multiple WSDL 2 services
> 
> appendix D: transformed RPC style and removed encoded use - don't use
> latter, transform schema for former
> 
> 
> 
> PART 3:
> 
> 2.1: multiple cases of "??" lacking preceding closing double quote:
> "xs:string??
> 
> 2.2 "identifying a soap binding" (should be "THE soap binding"?)
> 
> 2.6.2 should say {soap modules} is a set of SOAP Module components as
> defined in 2.6.3.
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
>                    Jacek Kopecky
> 
>                    Ph.D. student researcher
>                    Digital Enterprise Research Institute, Innsbruck
>                    http://www.deri.org/
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 29 April 2005 23:15:43 UTC