All of these fixed in WD05 except as noted below.
-Anish
--
Mark Combellack wrote:
> 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.
>
The general problem is not fixed.
>
>
> 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.
>
Not done.
>
>
> Page 40 – line 1408
>
> Section is missing example of using @Reference with a Constructor. It
> has examples for the other two cases.
>
Not done.
>
>
> 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?
>
>
Can't remember either, so not fixed.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Mark
>
> Mark Combellack| Software Developer| Avaya | Eastern Business Park | St.
> Mellons | Cardiff | CF3 5EA | Voice: +44 (0) 29 2081 7624 |
> <mailto:|>
>
>
>
>
>
