I did not feel that it is a big issue that is why I posted
to you guys. I think this is really editorial. But, if you all feel this way, I
would be happy to oblige to get the groups feeling.
I am just doing a pass at the spec, it reads quite fresh
that way.
--umit
From: Doug Davis [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, Jun 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
