RE: editorial comments on WSDL 2 part 1 last call draft

Thanks for your comment.  The WS Description Working Group tracked this
as a Last Call comment LC328 [1].  The Working Group has directed the
editors to fix the issues you mention.

If we don't hear otherwise within two weeks, we will assume this
satisfies your concern.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/issues.html#LC328


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jacek Kopecky
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 11:36 AM
> To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Subject: editorial comments on WSDL 2 part 1 last call draft
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> here are some (IMHO) editorial comments on WSDL2 part 1 2005 last call
> draft (it's really nifty how both last calls fall on 3 Aug 8-) ):
> 
> 
> 1) section 6.1.1 on mandatory extensions talks about extensions,
> features and properties being optional or mandatory. I believe all
> mentions of properties should be dropped from this section as
> properties
> cannot be made mandatory, AFAICS.
> 
> 
> 2) section 8 (Conformance) should have at least a short introductory
> paragraph before 8.1 starts; and this paragraph could describe how
> section 8 (Conformance) is different from 1.2 (Document Conformance).
> 
> 
> 3) MAY is IMHO overly capitalized in many places and should be
> lowercased: 2.3.1 first capitalized MAY; 2.4.1 same; 2.4.1.1 same;
> last
> in 2.9.1; first in 3.1; 3.1.2; 4.2.1; 7.1.
> 
> My rule of thumb is to capitalize MAY where a reader could reasonably
> expect MUST NOT or SHOULD NOT, like "the property MAY be empty", but
> not
> where the may is kinda obvious, like "XML Schema MAY be used [in
> WSDL]".
> 
> My reason for dropping the capitalization is to make it easier for the
> reader - they won't need to stop and think about the significance of
> this particular MAY (like "should I have expected otherwise for some
> reason?")
> 
> 
> 4) 2.8.1.1 says "IRI MAY ... be associated with AT MOST one ..." - I
> don't think we should use "MAY AT MOST" in the conformance sense here;
> this should be rephrased to use the standard MAY/SHOULD/MUST and other
> verbiage to describe the constraint.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jacek Kopecky
>

Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2005 20:44:03 UTC