Re: [sca-bindings] JCA & JMS specs

Anish,

I found that URL by googling draft-merrick-jms-uri-05.txt

I'm happy to update the reference to
that url, I'll do so after today's call when I produce a draft including
resolution to issue 77 (assuming we resolve that).

Regards, Simon

Simon Holdsworth

STSM, SCA Bindings Architect; Master Inventor; OASIS SCA Bindings TC Chair

MP 211, IBM UK Labs, Hursley Park, Winchester SO21 2JN, UK

Tel +44-1962-815059 (Internal 245059) Fax +44-1962-816898

Internet - 

Anish Karmarkar <>
wrote on 22/06/2009 22:14:46:

> 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

> 

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

> 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

> 

Unless stated otherwise above:

IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598. 

Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU