- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 00:33:37 +0600
- To: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>, "Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
- Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Just committed .. sorry 'bout the delay. See below tho. From: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org> > The following are other editorial changes > > 1. Some text in 2.1.2 about the intent of the targetNamespace overlaps text > in 2.1.1, and would be better merged into the same paragraph. > In particular, I suggest that we move the following text from 2.1.2: > [[ > The target namespace represents an unambiguous name for the > intended semantics of the WSDL Infoset. The targetNamespace URI > SHOULD point to a human or machine processable document that > directly or indirectly defines the semantics of the WSDL > Infoset. > ]] > to merge it in with existing paragraph in the note of 2.1.1, which > currently says: > [[ > The components directly defined within a single Definitions > component are said to belong to the same <emph>target > namespace</emph>. The target namespace therefore groups a set > of related component definitions and provides a hint of the > intended semantics of the components. > ]] > such that the existing paragraph in 2.1.1 becomes: > [[ > The components directly defined within a single Definitions > component are said to belong to the same <emph>target > namespace</emph>. The target namespace therefore groups a set > of related component definitions and represents an unambiguous > name for the > intended semantics of the components. The targetNamespace URI > SHOULD point to a human or machine processable document that > directly or indirectly defines the intended semantics of > those components. > ]] Done. > 2. In section "2.2.1 The Interface Component": > s/set of messages/sequence of messages/g Done. > 3. We should clearly say that any paragraph marked "Note" is > non-normative. I suggest using the term "Non-normative Note" instead of > just "Note" to mark each Note. Can we do this with a stylesheet change? I have not dealt with this. > 4. Sec 2.3.1.1.1: > s/map between a message and a signature/map between a message type and a > signature/ Not done as its not there any more; can you verify that that's ok ?? Thanks, Sanjiva.
Received on Wednesday, 17 March 2004 13:34:55 UTC