RE: Part 2 editorial issue: "binding" versus "binding extension"

I am satisfied with this resolution.  Thanks!


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Marsh [mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 2:46 PM
> To: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)
> Cc: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Part 2 editorial issue: "binding" versus 
> "binding extension"
> 
> 
> The WG accepted the editor's resolution of this issue (LC122 
> [1]). You can see the results at [2].  We'll assume you 
> accept this resolution if we don't hear from you within two weeks.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC122
> [2] 
> 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 David Booth
> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 7:23 AM
> To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Part 2 editorial issue: "binding" versus "binding extension"
> 
> 
> Part 2 sometimes uses the term "binding" when it should say "binding 
> extension".  A "binding" is a wsdl: construct that employs a 
> particular "binding extension", such as the WSDL 2.0 SOAP Binding 
> Extension.
> 
> Also, typo:
> Part 2 Sec 5: s/associated the message/associated with the message/
> 
> 
> --
> 
> David Booth
>

Received on Friday, 17 June 2005 20:14:50 UTC