Re: Editorial issues on latest SOAP 1.2 spec

See below

Gudge

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc J. Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>; "Jean-Jacques Moreau"
<moreau@crf.canon.fr>; "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>
Cc: <w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 7:35 AM
Subject: Editorial issues on latest SOAP 1.2 spec


> All,
>
> Below are some more (mainly editorial changes) to the latest version of
> the spec (the one with Henrik's changes in).
>
> I haven't made the changes in the spec, but could do so tomorrow (UK
> time) unless someone else volunteers first ?
>
> Regards,
> Marc.
>
> --
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
> Tel: +44 1252 423740
> Int: x23740
>
>
> 1. Introduction
>
> Text: "used in a large variety of systems ranging from messaging systems
> to Remote Procedure Calls (RPC)."
> Action: decapitalise "Remote Procedure Calls"

Done ( although I don't see why... )

>
> Text: "expressing *what* is in a message, *who* should deal with it, and
> *whether* it is optional or mandatory."
> Action: move bold style from "whether" to "optional" and "mandatory"

Done.

>
> Text: "either with or without the HTTP Extension Framework"
> Action: insert "experimental" before HTTP Extension Framework

Done.

>
> 1.2
>
> Text: "with the XMLP/SOAP "
> Action: only "XMLP" is struck-out, should be "XMLP/"

Done ( moved / into strikeout, did not *remove* struck out text )

>
> Text: "and "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" respectively both
> of which are defined "
> Action: insert comma after "respectively"

Done.

>
> 1.3
>
> Text: ""alert" which both are are application defined "
> Action: second "are" is already struck out, swap "both" and "are" around
> to read ""alert" which are both application defined "

Done.

>
> Text: "The example shows a sample SOAP/HTTP "
> Action: change to "Examples 1 and 2 show a sample SOAP/HTTP "

Done.


>
> Text: "contains an block"
> Action: change to "contains a block"

Done.

>
> Text: "the GetLastTradePrice is not "
> Action: replace with "the GetLastTradePrice element is not "

Done

>
> 1.4.2
>
> Text: Mixed use of syntactical and syntactic
> Action: decide on syntactical or syntactic - I prefer the latter.

Done ( changed two occurences of syntactical to syntactic )

>
> 2.3
>
> Text: "either a SOAP header blocks or a SOAP body block"
> Action: remove "s" from "blocks"

Done

>
> 2.4
>
> Text: "fully conform to and fully implement the specification according
> to the semantics conveyed by the fully qualified name "
> Action: doesn't read right, replace with "fully conform to and implement
> the semantics conveyed by the fully qualified name "

Done ( also removed hfn-in/hfn-out span tags )

>
> 2.5
>
> Text: "fault if one or more SOAP block targeted "
> Action: replace "block" with "blocks"

Done

>
> Text: "force processing of other SOAP headers "
> Action: change to "force processing of other SOAP header blocks " for
> consistency

Done.

>
> 3
>
> Text: "Schema document for these namespaces "
> Action: replace "document" with "documents"

Done

>
> 4.1.2
>
> Text: "A SOAP VesionMismatch "
> Action: typo should be "VersionMismatch"

Done.

>
> 4.4.2
>
> Text: "Each block has an attribute with a local name of qname. It has an
> attribute whose name is "qname", and whose value is the QName of a
> header which the faulting node failed to understand."
> Action: Repetition, change to "Each block has an attribute with a local
> name of "qname", and whose value is the QName of a header which the
> faulting node failed to understand."

Done ( also removed hfn-in/hfn-out span tags. Also added 'unqualified'
before 'attribute' )

>
> 6
>
> Text: (thoughout section 6 and it's subsections) "the HTTP Extension
> Framework"
> Action: change to "the experimental HTTP Extension Framework"

Done.

>
> Appendix C
>
> Text: "QName of the env:Envelope element "
> Action: would this be better as "QName of the SOAP envelope element " ?
> the "env:" is a bit incongruous.

Hmmmm. I just removed the 'env:'. We may need to wordsmith this further.

Received on Friday, 29 June 2001 02:11:40 UTC