One comment in-lined below.
-Anish
--
Eric Johnson wrote:
> PDF for JMS does not hyperlink normative statements, references, nor
> does it have a table of contents. (Weirdness - Okular the KDE 4.X PDF
> view, does not link the URLs at the beginning of the document, but Adobe
> Reader does)
>
> The specifications overall are inconsistent about typographical
> conventions for referring to elements and attributes. The WS Binding
> spec doesn't do anything special, but the JMS spec appears to use
> */bold/italic/* when referring to an element or attribute. For
> comparison, I checked with the Assembly spec, and it seems inconsistent,
> sometimes it uses /*bold/italic*/, however sometimes the Assembly spec
> refers to "/*foo element*/", and sometimes it refers to "/*foo*/
> element". I also note places in Assembly where bold and italic are not
> applied.
>
> Some clarity on what we should do might be useful.
>
> Also, we might want to define a standard for references - do we want to
> include the title of the reference with the first reference to it, or
> not. The WS Binding spec generally cuts to the chase, and I have a
> personal preference for that. That is, do we do "SCA Assembly
> Specification [SCA-Assembly]", or just "[SCA-Assembly]"?
>
> JMS spec:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/32790/sca-binding-jms-1.1-spec-cd02-rev2.pdf
>
>
> line 134: "... the generic JMS binding type. The type..." Technically,
> it is an element. --> "... the generic JMS binding element. The
> element...".
>
> line 137, 158, 159, 160, 333-334: " as defined in the SCA Assembly
> Specification [SCA-Assembly]" --> " as defined in [SCA-Assembly]"
>
> line 145: the proposed IETF JMS scheme doesn't follow this pattern.
> Instead it follows "jms:jndi:<jms-dest>?..."
>
> /Shame-faced confession:/ If you go and look for the IETF proposal, at
> the moment, you will not find it. We were going to update it a few
> weeks back (before the previous draft expired), when we discovered that
> IETF changed their legal disclosure requirements. That sent a bunch of
> us scrambling to talk to lawyers to make sure we do the right thing. I
> should be posting a new version by some time next week - of course,
> since the old one expired, I might find some new hurdle to overcome that
> will delay this slightly.
>
I don't think we should point normatively to a spec with a URL that we
know will result in 404. IETF drafts do expire after 6 months.
I would like to suggest that we use the same link used by SOAP over JMS
spec (http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-soapjms-20090604/):
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-merrick-jms-uri-05.txt
This URL points to an expired document, but the reader will at least be
able to retrieve it.
> Note that issue 20 <http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-20>, we
> resolved to follow the IETF here. Do we need another issue to update
> this again? Of course, it is probably hard to follow the IETF proposal,
> when it isn't even available...
>
> lines 524 - 529: In other places, rather than have such a large
> normative statement, we've created a definition of a notion, and then
> had a normative statement referring to that notion.
>
> line 731: I thought we had agreed that normative statements in the
> conformance section don't get numbered. Hmmm, maybe that's an open issue?
>
> JCA spec:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/32791/sca-binding-jca-1.1-spec-cd02-rev2.pdf
>
> Table of contents shows "Error: Bookmark not defined"
>
> (Looks like I've run out of time for today, and won't get to the rest of
> JCA before tomorrow's meeting)
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To
> unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
