← Prev in month ← Prev in thread

SCA-J Working Draft 04 Review Comments

From
Mark Combellack <>
Date
2008-09-15T10:48:36+00:00
ID
Thread
SCA-J Working Draft 04 Review Comments
Hi,

 

Having reviewed the changes in WD04 version of the SCA-J specifications,
I have the following comments:

 

 

Editorial issues that should be fixed
before we publish a CD

 

Document Footer:

Document version is wrong – it has WD03 but this is
WD04

Date is wrong – title page says 15 August 2008 but
footer says 27 May 2008-09-15

 

PDF Document:

Page numbers are wrong in the footer. It has Page 1 of 1,
Page 2 of 2, etc. The Word document is correct.

 

 

 

Minor Editorial issues that don’t
need to be fixed before we publish a CD

 

Page 7 – line 15

Extra space between end of sentence and full stop (.)

 

Page 17 – line 332

The code is coloured differently to the rest of the
document. The keywords public and boolean should be purple

Actually – this is a general problem throughout the
specification. Some code is coloured – other code is not.

 

Page 17 – line 359

Text is using the wrong font size (10 point.) The rest of
the document uses 9 point font size.  This is not visible in the PDF
version of the specification but can be seen as the text being “more bold”
in the Word version.

 

Page 27 – line 780

Remove extra space between ServiceReference<B> and extends

 

Page 27 – line 795

Supplied is spelt wrongly – in the document it is
spelt suppied

 

Page 39 – line 1349

Section is missing example of using @Property with a
Constructor. It has examples for the other two cases.

 

Page 40 – line 1408

Section is missing example of using @Reference with a
Constructor. It has examples for the other two cases.

 

Page 60 – lines 2235 to 2260

Text is using the wrong font size (10 point.) The rest of
the document uses 9 point font size.  This is not visible in the PDF
version of the specification but can be seen as the text being “more bold”
in the Word version.

 

 

QUESTIONS

 

I thought we agreed that we would update the style of the references
from [1] to [RFC2119]? Or was this for the Assembly specification?

 

 

Thanks,

 

Mark

Mark Combellack| Software Developer| Avaya | Eastern Business Park | St. Mellons | Cardiff |
CF3 5EA | Voice: +44 (0) 29 2081 7624 | 
← Prev in month ← Prev in thread