Re: [sca-bindings] Bindings issues 57, 58, 59, elated to Assembly-96,and section 1.3 of assembly cd02

Eric Johnson wrote:
> It is perhaps an extreme nit pick to bring this up, but the resolution
> of bindings issues 57, 58, & 59 all relate to Assembly-96.
> 
> As I was looking through the text of assembly-cd-02, section 1.3, I see
> this:
> An example of an intent which is an acronym is the "SOAP" intent.
> 
> Now, if you look here: http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#intro, you'll
> see "In previous versions of this specification the SOAP name was an
> acronym. This is no longer the case."
> 
> All of which makes SOAP a singularly terrible example to use, because
> with SOAP 1.1, SOAP is an acronym (at least officially, but probably
> never used that way), but with SOAP 1.2, it isn't.

Most of you have probably seen this before, but could not resist sending it:
http://wanderingbarque.com/nonintersecting/2006/11/15/the-s-stands-for-simple/

> 
> Since my task is to write text for the binding specifications to
> *reference* the materials of the assembly specification, and add the
> naming convention specific to bindings, the benefit of using a reference
> is that I won't be copying the error.  Should this be raised with the
> assembly specification?
> 

This is indeed a nit.
Since we are referencing things in the assembly spec, this should be 
raised in that TC. Perhaps "EJB" intent would be a better example.

-Anish
--