RE: [ws-rx] Editorial comments on WSRM WD 10

I took his issue to be something bigger
than the typo that was introduced into the spec but I could be wrong.

thanks,

-Doug

"Marc Goodner"
<> 

03/02/2006 11:34 AM

To

Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS,
"Matthew Lovett" <>

cc

<>

Subject

RE: [ws-rx] Editorial comments
on WSRM WD 10

Doug, I think Gil raised
an issue on 659-660 below. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200603/msg00008.html

 

Marc Goodner

Technical Diplomat

Microsoft Corporation

Tel: (425) 703-1903

Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/

From: Doug Davis [mailto:]

Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 8:04 AM

To: Matthew Lovett

Cc: 

Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Editorial comments on WSRM WD 10

 

Matt,  thanks - I've just checked in a new WD that has these fixed.

Please open a new issue for the 718&728 problem.

As for the schema/wsdl missing from the pdf I'll let someone else comment
on that  :-) 

thanks 

-Doug 

Matthew Lovett <>

03/02/2006 10:32 AM

To



cc

 

Subject

[ws-rx] Editorial comments
on WSRM WD 10

 

 
 

Hi all, 

Here are some editorial nits that I noted down. They are not serious, but
it would be nice if they were folded into the next WD. (Certainly no need
to fix them for the CD we are about to create.) All line numbers apply
to wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-10.pdf 

165: Wordsmith? 

236: 2 full stops, Next sentance starts adruptly. Perhaps reword to "The
<wsrm:CreateSequence> element ..."

335: Some of the text is blue, it seems to be an embedded mailto: link!

338: Should there be an element wildcard as well as an attribute one? The
(non-normative) schema includes both.

368 & 381: Should we drop the quotes around 'close'?

369-370: Drop the 2 commas?

382: <wsrm:Final> is defined below not above

382: Drop the "Note, " preamble from the sentance, reword to
"Wherever possible the SequenceClosed Fault SHOULD be used in place
of the SequenceTerminated Fault to allow the RM Source to still receive
Acknowledgements." 

431-433: Drop the 3 commas?

435: Drop the "Note, " preamble, reword to "Under normal
usage ..." 

563: I don't think we can 'advertise the timing of acks in policy' any
more... 

610: Reword "... when the Sequence is no longer receiving new message
for the specified sequence." to "... when the Sequence is closed."

659-660: "CreateSequenceRefused is a possible fault reply for this
operation." In the given context, there is no operation! Perhaps better
to say "CreateSequenceRefused is a possible fault reply for the CreateSequence
operation." 

718 & 728: The latter constrains the language used for the faultstring
to be in english, the former does not. Which is correct?

863: Missing space. 

923: The schema was included in a box in prior revisions. I preferred it
that way! The same comment applies to the wsdl file.

1173: The line numbers have gone wrong from here onwards.

Thanks 

Matt