Re: [ws-rx-editors] WD editorial comments/questions

Marc,

 thanks for the review.  I've
made all of the changes you suggested.  As for the issue with the
links I'll have to look at that one later.  OO was showing them ok
so I think it will require a bit more investigation.  The xml files
should have been kept in-sync with the specs and should be part of the
zip file.  I haven't the examples yet to make sure the xml is valid,
yet.

Editors,

 I made all of these edits into
the next WD of each spec.  I moved the current WDs into the "Closed
Editor Drafts" folder.  I did not update the main TC's Latest...
docs or the zip file.  I didn't want to confused people by updating
it in the middle of a review period.

thanks

-Doug

______________________________________________________

STSM  |  Web Services Architect  |  IBM Software Group

(919) 254-6905  |  IBM T/L 444-6905  |  

Marc Goodner <>

01/31/2007 06:43 PM

To

Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, Gilbert
Pilz <>

cc

""
<>

Subject

[ws-rx-editors] WD editorial comments/questions

I’m still need to do a second pass, but
here are the results from my first pass. Page numbers are from the pdfs
without diff lines.

 

All three specs

·         Footers
need the dates updated. I recommend scanning throughout for 2006 to update
to 2007 (copyright, etc.)

·         Link
issues from RM PDF, I stopped checking further after I discovered that
these don’t seem to be issues in the generated html. Is there a known
issue with the tool you are using to generate the pdf? I noticed similar
issues in the other specs. Even in the html the links to internal document
bookmarks, e.g. section headings or references are often either broken
or not active.

o   Spec
location link is not active

o   Anish’s
email is not hyperlinked in the editor list, the others are

o   None
of the references in the abstract and the other sections are links though
they look like links

o   In
status section the IPR link is not active, 2nd link to TC page
is not active

o   TOC,
Section heading links are broken, Appendix entries are not links

 

RM

·         Page
8, section 2.3 “in stead” should be “instead”

·         Page
23, section 3.9, under Nack definition, the second to last sentence “within
a AcknowledgementRange” should be “within an AcknowledgementRange”

·         Page
25, section 4, should WSRM Required be WSRMRequired? The section heading
for that fault has the space so its probably correct as it is.

·         Page
29, section4.7 “can not” should be “cannot”

 

RM Policy

·         No
other issues.

 

MakeConnection

·         Page
10, section 3.2 2nd to last bullet “E.g. In” should be “E.g.
in”

 

 

Questions

The schema/wsdl has changed. Are the separate
files ready?

Have the XML examples in the specs been
checked to make sure they are valid?