Re: [sca-bindings] JCA & JMS specs

[Simon Holdsworth <simon_holdsworth@uk.ibm.com>]

Anish,

I found that URL by googling draft-merrick-jms-uri-05.txt

I'm happy to update the reference to
that url, I'll do so after today's call when I produce a draft including
resolution to issue 77 (assuming we resolve that).

Regards, Simon

Simon Holdsworth
STSM, SCA Bindings Architect; Master Inventor; OASIS SCA Bindings TC Chair
MP 211, IBM UK Labs, Hursley Park, Winchester SO21 2JN, UK
Tel +44-1962-815059 (Internal 245059) Fax +44-1962-816898
Internet - Simon_Holdsworth@uk.ibm.com

Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
wrote on 22/06/2009 22:14:46:

> One comment in-lined below.
> 
> -Anish
> --
> 
> Eric Johnson wrote:
> > PDF for JMS does not hyperlink normative statements, references,
nor 
> > does it have a table of contents.  (Weirdness - Okular the
KDE 4.X PDF 
> > view, does not link the URLs at the beginning of the document,
but Adobe 
> > Reader does)
> > 
> > The specifications overall are inconsistent about typographical
> > conventions for referring to elements and attributes.  The
WS Binding 
> > spec doesn't do anything special, but the JMS spec appears to
use 
> > */bold/italic/* when referring to an element or attribute.  For
> > comparison, I checked with the Assembly spec, and it seems inconsistent,
> > sometimes it uses /*bold/italic*/, however sometimes the Assembly
spec 
> > refers to "/*foo element*/", and sometimes it refers
to "/*foo*/ 
> > element".  I also note places in Assembly where bold
and italic are not 
> > applied.
> > 
> > Some clarity on what we should do might be useful.
> > 
> > Also, we might want to define a standard for references - do
we want to 
> > include the title of the reference with the first reference to
it, or 
> > not.  The WS Binding spec generally cuts to the chase, and
I have a 
> > personal preference for that.  That is, do we do "SCA
Assembly 
> > Specification [SCA-Assembly]", or just "[SCA-Assembly]"?
> > 
> > JMS spec: 
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/32790/sca-
> binding-jms-1.1-spec-cd02-rev2.pdf 
> > 
> > 
> > line 134: "... the generic JMS binding type. The type..."
 Technically, 
> > it is an element.  --> "... the generic JMS binding
element.  The 
> > element...".
> > 
> > line 137, 158, 159, 160, 333-334: " as defined in the SCA
Assembly 
> > Specification [SCA-Assembly]" --> " as defined in
[SCA-Assembly]"
> > 
> > line 145: the proposed IETF JMS scheme doesn't follow this pattern.
 
> > Instead it follows "jms:jndi:<jms-dest>?..."
> > 
> > /Shame-faced confession:/ If you go and look for the IETF proposal,
at 
> > the moment, you will not find it.  We were going to update
it a few 
> > weeks back (before the previous draft expired), when we discovered
that 
> > IETF changed their legal disclosure requirements.  That
sent a bunch of 
> > us scrambling to talk to lawyers to make sure we do the right
thing.  I 
> > should be posting a new version by some time next week - of course,
> > since the old one expired, I might find some new hurdle to overcome
that 
> > will delay this slightly.
> > 
> 
> I don't think we should point normatively to a spec with a URL that
we 
> know will result in 404. IETF drafts do expire after 6 months.
> I would like to suggest that we use the same link used by SOAP over
JMS 
> spec (http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-soapjms-20090604/):
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-merrick-jms-uri-05.txt
> 
> This URL points to an expired document, but the reader will at least
be 
> able to retrieve it.
> 
> 
> > Note that issue 20 <http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-20>,
we 
> > resolved to follow the IETF here.  Do we need another issue
to update 
> > this again?  Of course, it is probably hard to follow the
IETF proposal, 
> > when it isn't even available...
> > 
> > lines 524 - 529: In other places, rather than have such a large
> > normative statement, we've created a definition of a notion,
and then 
> > had a normative statement referring to that notion.
> > 
> > line 731: I thought we had agreed that normative statements in
the 
> > conformance section don't get numbered.  Hmmm, maybe that's
an open issue?
> > 
> > JCA spec: 
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/32791/sca-
> binding-jca-1.1-spec-cd02-rev2.pdf
> > 
> > Table of contents shows "Error: Bookmark not defined"
> > 
> > (Looks like I've run out of time for today, and won't get to
the rest of 
> > JCA before tomorrow's meeting)
> > 
> > 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
To 
> > unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC
that 
> > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS
at: 
> > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS
at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>

---

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU