Some minor editorial nits in draft 15 wsrm spec section 4/page 25

Title: Some minor editorial nits in draft 15 wsrm spec section 4/page 25

Folks, 

I noticed the following in my reading. If this is covered already, please accept the apologies. 

Section 4 Paragraph 1 on Page 25 may read better with a different font or using bold with fault names. Further, there is a mix of the fault name vs. the fault code in the text. Fault names are indicated with using spaces with approprite section names, i.e. WSRM Required indicated by wsrm:WSRMRequired subcode. 

The paragraph intermix this usage, i.e. 

"CreateSequenceRefused is a possible fault reply for this operation". It should rather read "Create Fault Refused fault is a possible fault as a reply for this operation". I figured using the elements would be harder. 

Similarly WSRMRequired is a fault generated … should read "WSRM Required" 

Alternatively we may consider to change the heading names. 

Regardless, using a different font for fault names may improve readability. 

--umit

----------------------

Dr. Umit Yalcinalp

Architect

NetWeaver Industry Standards

SAP Labs, LLC

Email:  Tel: (650) 320-3095 

SDN: https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/weblogs?blog=/pub/u/36238