- From: Jose Kahan <jose.kahan@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:17:48 +0200
- To: tommy lindberg <lindberg_tommy@hotmail.com>
- Cc: www-xkms@w3.org
Hi Tommy, This is just a confirmation message for closing the decision cycle. The comments you reported[1] were assigned issues 320-tl-1 up to 320-tl-9[2]. The proposed changes were accepted and added to the editor's draft. Please reply to this message if you have any objections as to the way the changes were incorporated. -jose [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xkms/2004Jul/0010.html [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/Drafts/cr-issues/issues.html#320-tl-1 On Mon, Jul 05, 2004 at 07:02:11PM +0000, tommy lindberg wrote: > > > Following is a list of editorial stuff that I have kept note of > over the last while. > > In Part 1: > > - paragraph [179] refers to TemplateKeyBinding; shouldn't this be > PrototypeKeyBinding? > > - paragraph [115], "nonce attribute" should be "Nonce attribute" > > - paragraph [193], "both elements" should be "both attributes" > > - paragraph [149], the text states that KeyName and KeyValue are > requested however in [150] only KeyValue is actually specified > in request > > - paragraph [109] 3.2.4 Element <PendingNotification> > Table has a column URI; use Mechanism instead? > > In Part 2: > > - paragrapgh [50] LocateRequest message contains invalid Respondwith > value <RespondWith>Multiple</RespondWith> > > - paragraph [67] "with a value of true" should be "with a value of 1" > > - paragraph [68] SOAP 1.1 namespace URI in message should be > http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/ > > - the SOAP 1.2 namespace URI refers to a working draft > [http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope] through out. > Shouldn't this be http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope ? > > Regards > Tommy
Received on Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:18:12 UTC