Re: initial work on additional meps document

Amy,

The work is yours, not mine. Overall, this looks goods. I've caught up a 
few typos, which I'm probably guilty for, having thought about but not 
dealt with them when excruciating the Note from Part2.

- Summary and Intro: having a bulleted list for a single element is 
probably an overkill.

- Do we need to mention the Primer and Core spec in the intro?

- Section 1.2 Assertions: are there any?

- Section 2, introductory text (several paragraphs): should we not refer 
instead to Part 2 rather than duplicate the material? (I haven't 
checked, but I believe we give similar definitions in Part 2 already.)

- Maybe use a <val/> element to quote pattern names, eg. 
<val>in-optional-out</val>.

- Do we need the WSA normative reference? (No strong opinion, just 
wondering.)

JJ.

Amelia A Lewis wrote:
> Heylas,
>
> Thanks to Jean-Jacques having done the hardest work, I've been able to get an initial draft of the proposed Additional MEPs Note prepared.  I'm currently the only listed editor, which seems wrong, but I don't know who to put, so tell me that, among other things.
>
> It would help me a lot if folks would take a look at this and point out problems.  Most of what I have done is to remove information (references, text that can be pointed at in Part 2, like that).
>
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-additional-meps.html
>
> Note that there are some obvious problems with characters generated, which is presumably an artifact of generation of the HTML on my machine.  I may ask someone who's more familiar with the toolsets used to transform the xml into html if they'd regenerate and check in a copy.  In any event, I know about that part already.
>
> If I could get some folks to look, then I can revise, and perhaps we can get this note completed and added to our pubs as well.  Thanks for your time.
>
> Amy!
>

Received on Wednesday, 8 November 2006 13:57:18 UTC