- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 14:29:12 -0800
- To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Noah Mendelson" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "W3C Public Archive" <www-archive@w3.org>, "Nilo Mitra" <EUSNILM@am1.ericsson.se>, "David Fallside" <fallside@us.ibm.com>
Marc and I went through the remaining of Gudge's issues for Part 2 and here's what we think we (spec editors) need to do: >8. Section 4.2.2 > > The numbered bullets use the term 'terminal node', but >that term no longer exists in the data model. We should >rewrite in terms of nodes with a lexical value. Pending Gudge's recovery >9. Section 4.4 > > The language in the numbered bullets doesn't seem >consistent with other language concerning infoset items Add text to the first occurance of "Value of Code" as in part 1. Henrik Frystyk Nielsen mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com >-----Original Message----- >From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen >Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 15:08 >To: Martin Gudgin; W3C Public Archive; Jean-Jacques Moreau; >Marc Hadley; Nilo Mitra; Noah Mendelson > > >Overall status: all done except 8 and 9. > >>1. Section 1 >> >> The language we use for bullet 4 doesn't match the other bullets > >Match is now slightly better > >>2. Section 2.1 >> >> "this, if any" should read "thus, if any" > >Already done > >>3. Section 3.1.1 >> >> We should put a cross-ref to Part 1 at the end of >numbered bullet 2. > >done > >>4. Section 3.1.6 >> >> "considered to be of unspecified size" should read >"considered to have >>a single dimension of unspecified size" > >done > >>5. Section 3.1.7 >> >> For consistency we should say the type is enc:valueType > >done > >>6. Section 4 >> >> We should drop "only" from "not limited only to the >SOAP HTTP Binding" > >done > >>7. Section 4.2.2 >> >> First bullet should be removed ( left over text ) > >Alredy done > >>8. Section 4.2.2 >> >> The numbered bullets use the term 'terminal node', but >that term no >>longer exists in the data model. We should rewrite in terms of nodes >>with a lexical value. > >NOT DONE > >>9. Section 4.4 >> >> The language in the numbered bullets doesn't seem >consistent with >>other language concerning infoset items > >NOT DONE > >>10. Section 5.1.1 >> >> First bullet has an example which is a QName ( should be a URI ) > >Already fixed (example removed) > >>11. Section 5.1.2 >> >> Diagram. Should the cloud with "Net" in it read "Network"? > >I can live with "Net" but not a biggie > >Henrik
Received on Monday, 9 December 2002 17:29:47 UTC