Additional Part 1 feedback

Hi Jose -

I went through Part 1 [1] once more and made the following notes.

[25] There is still a QName reference. I think it is enough to remove the last
sentence of this paragraph and change the preceding one to "This means
that namespace
prefixes are omitted for all element names and type names.".

[56a] Two lines below "Requestor processing of the Status Response
Message" Failed should be Failure.

[151] Paragraph ends with two full stops.

[134] The attribute name is a Failure not Failed.

I also wonder if it would not be clearer to replace the three almost
identical sentences:
"In the case of a non-compound request, the operation that completed
has status ..."

by inserting a single sentence of the form

"In the case of a non-compound request, the status is indicated in the
ResultMajor
attribute."

immediately preceeding [134].

[221] and [226] suggest that there is a <ResultCode> element, which is
not the case.
It may be sufficient to say something like "result code NoMatch" instead.

[231] "complete" -> "completely"

[243] Replace colon in "element:" with "."

[249] Delete semicolon in "Appendix C. 1.3.;"

[268] The <xenc:EncryptedData> elements in the spec sample do not have Type nor
MimeType attributes.  I am not saying they should have them, I am
simply making you
aware of this. Personally I don't think it would hurt to examplify
what is stated in [303].
If you do decide to make the modification, the affected samples (a
total of 2 I believe)
remain valid, as they are not signed.

[293] Delete colon in "element:"

[303] "return Sender.ProofOfPossessionRequired result" -> "return a
Sender.ProofOfPossessionRequired result"

[350] "Some features as specified as" -> "Some features are specified as"

[373a] "<locate> .... </locate>" -> <LocateRequest> .... </LocateRequest>"

Regards,
Tommy

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/Drafts/XKMS-PR-PUB/PR-PUB-xkms-part-1.html

Received on Monday, 25 April 2005 07:05:09 UTC