Re: Long owed Description stack words

Hi Chris.

I just reread the introduction, and there is something that I drew my
attention.

* Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com> [2002-10-28 07:42-0500]
> > On the same topic, in the introduction, I would change:
> > 
> > |   The popular Web services standards; SOAP and WSDL, were originally
> > |   developed outside the W3C but are now being refined and standardized
> > |   within the W3C Web Services Activity. These de-facto standards have
> > |   helped by creating and extensible messaging framework (SOAP) , and 
> an
> > |   interface definition language (WSDL) and data encoding conventions
> > |   that facilitate mapping to back end systems.
> > 
> > into:
> > 
> >   The popular Web services technologies SOAP 1.1 and WSDL 1.1 were
> >   originally developed outside the W3C but are now being used as the
> >   basis for creating an extensible messaging framework (SOAP 1.2) and
> >   an interface definition language (WSDL 1.2) as well as data encoding
> >   conventions that facilitate mapping to back end systems, within the
> >   W3C Web Services Activity.
> 
> I haven't taken verbatim, but have taken your suggested prose and
> tweaked it slightly as the last bit: 
> 
>         within the W3C Web Services Activity.
> 
> was ambiguous (e.g. it appeared to imply that the data encoding 
> conventions
> facilitated mapping to back end systems belonging to the W3C...)

You ended up with[1]:

|   The popular Web services technologies SOAP 1.1 and WSDL 1.1 were
|   originally developed outside the W3C but are now being developed
|   within the W3C Web Services Activity. These specifications are being
|   used as the basis for creating an extensible messaging framework
|   (SOAP 1.2) and an interface definition language (WSDL 1.2) as well as  
|   data encoding conventions that facilitate mapping to back end
|   systems.

This makes it sound that SOAP 1.1 and WSDL 1.1 are being developed
within the Web Services Activity, which isn't the case strictly
speaking.

I must say that I find this paragraph not to liaise smoothly with the
rest of the introduction: I tried to rewrite it, but it still looks
weird to me.

Is it possible just to drop it (the "when in doubt just drop it"
rule)? If you think it brings something to our document, then I will
try another rewording.

Regards,

Hugo

  1. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/arch/wsa/wd-wsa-arch.html#archneed
-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/

Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 10:56:06 UTC