Re: [ebxml-msg] Groups - ebMSv3-Whitepaper.doc uploaded

[Doug Bunting <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>]

I agree this change may be considered editorial.  The technical import 
of the updated sentence aligns (stops conflicting) with our previous 
technical discussions and does not introduce a new technical discussion.

A couple of even-more-editorial (mostly) items:

* In the third paragraph of the Introduction, last sentence, "detailed 
later" should be "detailed earlier" since the previous Status section 
describes the comment mechanisms.

* The Introduction could be a bit more explicit about requesting 
reviewers' priority suggestions.  We are interested specifically in 
suggested priorities and TC volunteers, not just generally in "comments 
and contributions" to this document.

* In item 3 of Section 1.2, I would say "release schedules for 
WS-Reliability are known but may slip" or some such.  The schedules are 
not "unknown" because they were published as part of that TC Charter.

* In Section 1.3.1 (why is this a subsection?), items 3, 4 and 5 from 
section 1.2 would also be appropriate.  If this is controversial, we can 
come back to it later rather than introduce something problematic at 
this late date.

* I would answer the question in item 3 of Section 2.1 as follows: No, 
the primary restriction on payloads when using this option is that they 
must be in XML format without processing instructions, document 
declarations or XML declarations and should be in an explicit namespace. 
  The WS-I Basic Profile 1.0 may further restrict the contents of a SOAP 
Body to a single top level element however.

* In Section 3.4, our favourite "negation" for "negotiation" typographic 
error remains.

thanx,
	doug

On 30-Nov-03 08:23, Dale Moberg wrote:
> I think we should definitely make the change before public release. 
> 
> It is an editorial matter because we all explicitly discussed the
> change, and just managed to transpose. Are you asking us for another
> ballot (vote) or do we just need some one more person to vote? I assume
> the latter.
> 
> Dale
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ian.c.jones@bt.com [mailto:ian.c.jones@bt.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 5:12 AM
> To: mattm@adobe.com; ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Groups - ebMSv3-Whitepaper.doc uploaded
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> Matt and team,
>  
>             I just spotted an important typo in the whitepaper, in the
> edditing we have either transposed or reworded the first sentacnce of
> section 2.1 Message Manifest.  It is currently "Placement of the
> Manifest in the SOAP body, rather than the SOAP header, is suggested for
> two main reasons."  this is the exact opposite of what we want, we are
> proposing moving the manifest from the body to the header.   I propose
> we transpose header and body to read as:
> Placement of the Manifest in the SOAP header, rather than the SOAP body,
> is suggested for two main reasons.
>  
>          If nobody objects on Monday can someone make an edit to the
> document and repost (Matt?) as I am travelling all day.
>  
>         We still need one more vote to approve this for release.
>  
> Ian Jones
> Chair
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-msg/members/leave_workgroup.php.
> 

-- 
     SunNetwork EMEA 2003 Conference and Pavilion
"Get Connected to the Future of Network Computing!"

	WHEN: December 3-4, 2003
	WHERE: ICC * Berlin, Germany

For more information or to register for the
conference, please visit http://sun.com/sunnetwork.