Re: Comments from a Read-Through of Part 1

Thanks for your very careful review.

Dealing with the easy ones first... (more details below).

Jean-Jacques.

Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM wrote:

> Minor
> -----
>
> Section 1.2, first paragraph: perhaps "message examples in this document
> are shown using XML 1.0" should say "message examples in this document are
> shown using XML 1.0 syntax"?

Done.

> Section 2.6 first paragraph: suggest replacing "as long as all SOAP
> messages" with "as long as all generated SOAP messages".  I think it's a
> bit clearer.

Done.

> Section 2.6, Note at the end: the word "survived" is misspelled.  The
> entire document needs to be spell checked.

Done previously by Gudge, as part of a general spell-check.

> Section 2.7.1: suggest the following minor rewording of the first sentence.
> Original: "The semantics of one or more SOAP blocks in a SOAP message, or
> the SOAP message exchange pattern used MAY request that the SOAP message be
> forwarded it to another SOAP nodes...".  I don't think that either
> "semantics" or a "pattern" can make a request.   Proposed provision: "The
> semantics of one or more SOAP blocks in a SOAP message, or the SOAP message
> exchange pattern used MAY >>require<< that the SOAP message be forwarded it
> to another SOAP nodes..."

Done. Actually, Hervé raised an issue about that paragraph [1]. I also think it
breaks the flow of section 2.7 (due to the use of the passive?). What do you
think?

> Section 5.4.5:  wording is a bit  confusing  Original: "The absence of the
> detail element information item indicates that a SOAP Fault is not related
> to the processing of the SOAP Body . This can be used to find out whether
> the SOAP Body was at least partially processed by the ultimate SOAP
> receiver before the fault occurred, or not."  What is "this" in the last
> sentence?  Suggested alternative:  "The absence of the detail element
> information item indicates that a SOAP Fault is not related to the
> processing of the SOAP Body.  Presence of the detail element information
> item is a signal that the SOAP Body was at least partially processed by the
> ultimate SOAP receiver before the fault occurred."

Done.

> Section 5.4.6, first paragraph: I believe that the reference to XML
> Namespaces [7] should in fact be to the Schema Datatypes recommendation.

Oh, why?

> Section 5.4.6:
> - Table entry for VersionMismatch.  Original:  "The processing party found
> an invalid element information item..."  Replace with:  "The faulting node
> found an invalid element information item..."

Done.

>  A processing party sounds
> like something we would have with cake and ice cream once our SOAP
> implementation worked.

Forwarded to Gudge and Marc (ice cream). Marc is grateful (IRC).

>  Later in that same definition:  Original:  "The
> namespace, localname or both did not match the Envelope element information
> item (see 2.8 SOAP Versioning Model and 5.4.7 VersionMismatch Faults)"
> Replacement: "The namespace, localname or both did not match the Envelope
> element information item required by this recommendation (see 2.8 SOAP
> Versioning Model and 5.4.7 VersionMismatch Faults)."

Done.

> -I believe that the header on the first column in the table should be
> "Local Name", as opposed to "Name"

Done.

> -Table entry for DTDNotSupported to be removed per issue 191

Done by Henrik yesterday.

> -In the description of DataEncodingUnknown:  Replace "A header or body
> targetted at the current SOAP node is scoped (see 5.1.1 SOAP encodingStyle
> Attribute) with a data encoding that the current node does not support."
> with "A header or body targetted at the faulting SOAP node is scoped (see
> 5.1.1 SOAP encodingStyle Attribute) with a data encoding that the faulting
> node does not support."

Done.

> Sorry this list is so long.  I hope this is of help in refining our work.

Done. Oops... I meant thanks for taking the time to review the spec with such
attention.

Still half-a-day to go, but it looks like you will be the winner of the
editor's special prize for the best review so far. (Would this look like a
hint? Anyone still reading this far?)

Jean-Jacques.

PS. You have done a tremendous job already, and you may not find the time to do
it; but the editors would be very grateful if you could review part 2 as well.

Received on Friday, 5 April 2002 06:09:24 UTC