RE: SOAP 1.2 Part 0: Primer Editor's draft available for review

Thanks for your comments. Comments/disposition inlined preceded by "NM:"

Nilo Mitra			
Ericsson Internet Applications Inc.
phone: +1 516-677-1073
mobile: +1 516-476-7427

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Jean-Jacques Moreau []
> Sent:	Tuesday, November 27, 2001 12:19 PM
> To:	Nilo Mitra (EMX)
> Cc:	''
> Subject:	Re: SOAP 1.2 Part 0: Primer Editor's draft available for review
> Nilo,
> Thanks for providing this new draft. Overall, this looks better. Here
> are my comments:
>    * You don't seem to be using <?xml ...?> consistently.
	NM: Will check and correct.

>    * In example 1, you should be more explicit about why you have chose
>      <reservation> and <passenger> to be header blocks.
	NM: Agreed. Will provide some (plausible:-) ) text.

>    * In the same example, be more explicit as well about why you choose
>      not to use RPC.
	NM: Don't know if this was a real design choice. It was based on the need to meet a comment on the previous draft that the examples not be too RPC-ish. I thought this was a part of a plausible document exchange oriented scenario which could be built upon throughout the document. 

>    * In keeping with the style of the Schema primer, I'd suggest you
>      either spread out the processing model section (2.2) over the
>      entire document, or add some small examples to make it more
>      digestable to person not familiar with SOAP.
	NM: I will try. I have after each example provided text on how blocks are handled, but there was a need to provide one place where some of the basic concepts could be explained in plain terms, hence 2.2.

>    * In section 2.3.2, RPC, I'd suggest you indicate SOAP does not
>      specify any IDL (out of scope).
	NM: Agreed. Will do.

>    * Example 4: why does <Transaction> start with a capital T, unlike
>      your other element information items?
	NM: Will change.

>    * Do we need section 5?
	NM: As discussed and accepted at the F2F, I'll put a banner ednote in section 5 and also in the intro stating that this is a temporary placeholder for the contents which at some point will be moved to a W3C NOTE. The consensus was that section 5.1 must be captured somewhere.

> Jean-Jacques.

Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2001 17:46:50 UTC