W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > July 2004

Re: Editorial comments on Part 3

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 16:41:14 +0200
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040716144114.GF32010@w3.org>
As per my action item, here is a clarification about the readability
problem I reported:

* Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org> [2004-07-01 16:41+0200]
> I did a quick review of Part 3. I will need to do a more thorough
> reading, but I had a few initial editorial comments.
> SOAP binding:
> -------------
> From a readability perspective, I have found section 2 easier to read
> then section 3. I believe that this is because section 3 (HTTP
> binding) shows the pseudo-schema first, and then starts talking about
> default values. In section 2 (SOAP binding), we hear immediately about
> default values of things that we haven't heard from yet.

I have reread my comment and the spec, and indeed, I meant to write
that section 2 *harder* to read then section 3.

In details, section 3 looks like:

   3. WSDL HTTP Binding
       3.1 HTTP Syntax Summary (Non-Normative)
       3.2 Indicating an HTTP Binding
           3.2.1 Relationship to WSDL Component Model
           3.2.2 HTTP Binding Component
           3.2.3 XML Representation of HTTP Binding Component
           3.2.4 Mapping Between HTTP Binding's XML Representation to
   Component Properties
       3.3 Default Binding Rules

whereas section 2 starts off with defining default values for
properties that haven't been defined yet:

   2. WSDL SOAP Binding
       2.1 Identifying a SOAP Binding
       2.2 Default Binding Rules

Maybe section 2.8 XML Syntax Summary should appear earlier.

As I mentioned, this is a personal feeling about the spec, is up to
the editors of section 2 to resolve, and is not required to be fixed
to go to Last Call.



Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/

Received on Friday, 16 July 2004 10:41:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:43 UTC