Re: [ws-rx-editors] Some minor editorial nits in draft 15 wsrm spec section4/page 25

Wanna open an issue?  Feels a bit
larger than just mindless monkey editing work and we know how the tc feels
about us taking some initiative  :-)

-Doug

"Yalcinalp, Umit"
<> 

06/28/2006 09:31 PM

To

<>

cc

Subject

[ws-rx-editors] 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