[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Bindings issues 57, 58, 59, elated to Assembly-96,and section 1.3 of assembly cd02
Eric Johnson wrote: > It is perhaps an extreme nit pick to bring this up, but the resolution > of bindings issues 57, 58, & 59 all relate to Assembly-96. > > As I was looking through the text of assembly-cd-02, section 1.3, I see > this: > An example of an intent which is an acronym is the "SOAP" intent. > > Now, if you look here: http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#intro, you'll > see "In previous versions of this specification the SOAP name was an > acronym. This is no longer the case." > > All of which makes SOAP a singularly terrible example to use, because > with SOAP 1.1, SOAP is an acronym (at least officially, but probably > never used that way), but with SOAP 1.2, it isn't. Most of you have probably seen this before, but could not resist sending it: http://wanderingbarque.com/nonintersecting/2006/11/15/the-s-stands-for-simple/ > > Since my task is to write text for the binding specifications to > *reference* the materials of the assembly specification, and add the > naming convention specific to bindings, the benefit of using a reference > is that I won't be copying the error. Should this be raised with the > assembly specification? > This is indeed a nit. Since we are referencing things in the assembly spec, this should be raised in that TC. Perhaps "EJB" intent would be a better example. -Anish --
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]