Well, and at this stage we
should be tracking the changes we are making to the spec. We better get use to
it as the tracking requirements go way up in PR.
From: Doug Davis
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 7:07 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [ws-rx-editors] Some minor editorial nits in draft 15 wsrm
spec section 4/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
