RE: WSDL 2.0 part 2 comment - 2.3.x, 2.2.x wording problems

Thanks for your comment.  The WS Description Working Group tracked this
issue as a CR068 [1].

The Working Group accepted your suggestions for editorial improvements, and
implemented them in the latest editor's draft [2].

Unless you let us know otherwise by the end of October, we will assume you
agree with the resolution of this issue. 

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR068
[2]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.html
?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#patterns


Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Barclay
> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 12:27 PM
> To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Subject: WSDL 2.0 part 2 comment - 2.3.x, 2.2.x wording problems
> 
> 
> Regarding the WSDL 2.0 part 2 CR document currently at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20-adjuncts:
> 
> 
> * The sections on the message exchange patterns (2.3.1, 2.3.2, ..., 2.3.8)
>    have a small wording problem.  They all begin with:
> 
>      This pattern consists of ...
> 
>    instead of something such as:
> 
>      The in-out pattern consists of ...
> 
>    (or
> 
>      The In-Out message exchange pattern consists of ...
> 
>    or whatever).
> 
>    Specifically, the main text does not stand on its own (independent of
>    the headings) as it should.  Headings are not part of the text (not
>    supposed to be required to be read to understand the text); they are
>    just guides for finding or skipping portions of the text.
> 
>    (For example, notice how, say, section 4.1.2, XML Representation of the
>    wrpc:signature Extension, starts off:
> 
>      The XML representation for the RPC signature extension is an
>      attribute information item with ...
> 
>    instead of beginning:
> 
>      This is an attribute information item with ...
> 
>    Also, see any professionally edited book.)
> 
> 
>    (Additionally, notice that with the current wording, nothing in the
> text
>    or header clearly indicates what the patterns' names are.  For example,
>    neither the text nor the header says of section 2.3.1 ever says "the
>    In-Only MEP."
> 
>    The header text "In-Out" does indicate that "In-Out" has something to
>    do with the following text, and even the pattern described in it, but
>    doesn't make clear that is the name of the pattern.)
> 
> 
> * More seriously, section 2.2.3 has a similar problem that does strongly
>    affect the semantics of the text.  The section begins:
> 
>      Faults MUST NOT be propagated.
> 
>    Note how that current wording clearly says that faults must not be
>    propagated, period (full stop).  (There is no mention that that applies
>    only for a/the No Faults rule, as apparently intended.)
> 
>    The text should probably begin somewhat like this:
> 
>      Under the No Faults fault propagation rule, faults MUST NOT be
>      propagated.
> 
> * Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 have similar definitional problems.
> 
> 
> * Presumably, the document is likely to have the same types of errors in
>    other places, so it should be reviewed and corrected as necessary.
> 
> 
> Daniel Barclay
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 16 October 2006 18:19:32 UTC