+1
Typically, literals are either in quotes or have a special typographical
convention (italics or something like that).
-Anish
--
Doug Davis wrote:
>
> LOL so I was about to do the "none" issue and went looking around to see
> how we had other URIs in the spec. I think all of them are called-out
> into their own special paragraphs. I then went to the WSA spec to see if
> they used the full anon or none URIs inside a paragraph. They do but
> they put quotes around it :-)
> So, I'm now thinking we should keep the quotes AND change "none" to
> "http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/none".
> Thoughts?
> -Doug
>
>
>
> *Anish Karmarkar <>*
>
> 06/07/2006 12:49 PM
>
>
> To
> Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: [ws-rx-editors] Fw: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13 and WS-RM
> Policy WD 9
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> +1 to reordering schema/message examples/wsdl.
>
> On the quotes around "none". Either we should retain the quotes OR if we
> wanted to be precise, then include the correct URI:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/none
>
> I prefer the latter.
>
> -Anish
> --
>
> Doug Davis wrote:
> >
> > So,
> > things we should discuss:
> >
> > - Should we reorder the schema, message examples and wsdl? I think
> > Marc's idea sounds right - schema, wsdl and then samples
> > - Who has the source for figure 2?
> > - Thoughts on quotes around "none" ? Not a biggie but I do prefer them
> > there.
> >
> > thanks,
> > -Doug
> >
> > ----- Forwarded by Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM on 06/07/2006 10:36 AM -----
> > *Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS*
> >
> > 06/07/2006 10:39 AM
> >
> >
> > To
> > "Marc Goodner" <>
> > cc
> >
> > Subject
> > Re: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13 and WS-RM Policy
> WD 9
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Marc - thanks for the detailed review - comments inline.
> > -Doug
> >
> > "Marc Goodner" <> wrote on 06/05/2006 02:07:29 PM:
> > > WS-RM WD 13
> > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.
> > > php/18451/wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-13.pdf
> > >
> > > Line numbers in this document are inaccurate, particularly in
> > > Section 2. I only use line numbers below with sections or pages
> > > where there are not two of the same.
> > >
> > > I did not review the state tables given there is another revision
> > > planned. Similarly I did not examine the schema, message examples or
> > > wsdl in any detail but plan to. Why are these section in that order?
> > > Doesn’t it make more sense to have the wsdl follow the schema?
> > *
> > Will discuss with editors.*
> >
> > > Section 2
> > > Change “and Transmits it” to “and transmits it”.
> > > Change “that Sends” to “that sends”
> >
> > Fixed (in WD14 in editor's playpen)
> >
> > > Figure 2 is not legible.
> >
> > Working on it - but a little mystery makes life exciting :-)
> >
> > > Section 3.1
> > > Line 222, page 11 “none” does not need to be in quotes.
> >
> > Will discuss with editors but I think it might confuse non-WSA
> > experts to not have it in quotes.
> >
> > > Line 309, page 13 the 2119 term optional is used and not in caps.
> >
> > Fixed
> >
> > > Section 3.2
> > > Line 347, page 14 the 2119 term may is used and is not in caps.
> >
> > Fixed
> >
> > > Section 3.3
> > > Line 459, page 16 check for a space between”[URI])” and “of”.
> >
> > Fixed
> >
> > > Section 3.5
> > > Line 530, page 18 change “below” to “Section 3.6”.
> >
> > Fixed
> >
> > > Section 3.6
> > > Line 558, page 19 reference to “Section Request Acknowledgment” is
> > > not consistent with references elsewhere in spec. Change “Section
> > > Request Acknowledgement” to “Section 3.5”.
> > > Line 562, page 19 “piggy-backing does not need to be in quotes.
> > > Line 615, page 20 strike “Note:” as 2119 text is used in the text
> > > that follows it is more than a note.
> >
> > Fixed
> >
> > > Section 4
> > > The first two paragraphs of this section are practically duplicates
> > > of each other. The first paragraph can be stricken by adding a one
> > > sentence description of WSRMRequired after the second sentence of
> > > the second paragraph. I can raise this as a new issue if that is
> > preferable.
> > *
> > Please do - since those paragraphs have been of some concern to some* *
> > people I'd prefer to get agreement on it.*
> >
> > > Line 670, page 22 end sentence beginning on line 668 after “detected”.
> > > Line 676, page 22 change “defined in the version of WS-Addressing
> > > used in the message” to “defined in WS-Addressing” as we only
> > > reference a single version of Addressing.
> > > Line 676, page 22 change “current version” to “W3C Recommendation”
> > > Line 678, page 22 update to W3C Rec value, “http://www.w3.
> > > org/2005/08/addressing/fault”
> > *
> > For consistency I did this but I think we need to revisit this since* *
> > WSA now says that .../addressing/fault SHOULD only be used for WSA* *
> > faults - and we're talking about RM faults in this section. WSA* *
> > suggests that other specs define their own URI - or am I reading* *
> > this wrong?*
> >
> > > Line 680, page 22 change “section 4 of WS-Addressing” to “section 6
> > > of WS-Addressing SOAP Binding”.
> > > Line 694, page 22 update to W3C Rec value, “http://www.w3.
> > > org/2005/08/addressing/fault”
> >
> > Fixed
> >
> > > Section 6
> > > Update [WS-Addressing] to point to Recommendation.
> > > W3C Recommendation, “Web Services Addressing 1.0 - Core”, May 2006.
> > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-ws-addr-core-20060509/
> > >
> > > W3C Recommendation, “Web Services Addressing 1.0 – SOAP Binding”, May
> > 2006.
> > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-ws-addr-soap-20060509/
> > >
> > > Update [WS-Policy] to point to W3C Member Submission.
> > > W3C Member Submission, "Web Services Policy Framework (WS-Policy),"
> > > April 2006.
> > > http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-WS-Policy-20060425/
> > >
> > > Update [WS-PolicyAttachment] to point to W3C Member Submission.
> > > W3C Member Submission, "Web Services Policy Attachment
> > (WS-PolicyAttachment)
> > > ," April 2006.
> > > http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-WS-PolicyAttachment-20060425/
> >
> > Fixed
> >
> > > Section C
> > > Line 1469 change “non-normative” to “normative”.
> >
> > Fixed
> >
> > > Section E
> > > Line 1593 the TBD should be completed for PR.
> > *
> > Can you open an issue so we don't forget about this?*
> >
> > > WS-RM Policy WD9
> > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.
> > > php/18454/wsrmp-1.1-spec-wd-09.pdf
> > >
> > > Section 4
> > > Update [WS-Policy] to point to W3C Member Submission.
> > > W3C Member Submission, "Web Services Policy Framework (WS-Policy),"
> > > April 2006.
> > > http://www.w3.org/Submission/WS-Policy/
> > > http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-WS-Policy-20060425/
> > >
> > > Update [WS-PolicyAttachment] to point to W3C Member Submission.
> > > W3C Member Submission,"Web Services Policy Attachment
> > (WS-PolicyAttachment)
> > > ," April 2006.
> > > http://www.w3.org/Submission/WS-PolicyAttachment/
> > > http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-WS-PolicyAttachment-20060425/
> > >
> > > Add reference to WSS 1.1 under [WSS] (as is done in WS-RM).
> > > Anthony Nadalin, Chris Kaler, Phillip Hallam-Baker, Ronald Monzillo,
> > eds. "
> > > OASIS Web Services Security:
> > > SOAP Message Security 1.1 (WS-Security 2004)", OASIS Standard
> > > 200602, February 2006.
> >
> > Fixed
> >
> > > Section A
> > > Line 253 the TBD should be completed for PR.
> > *
> > can you include this in the same new issue as the RM spec one?*
>
