[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] WSRM WD 10 and WSRMP WD 06 and related documents uploaded(candidates for CD 3)
Paul, I've no idea why it did that. In any case, I regenerated the PDF and it fixed that particular problem. Since I'm uploading the files to the main TC page, I'll upload the regened PDF. -Anish -- Paul Cotton wrote: > The line numbers in WSRM WD 10 are not useable and make it impossible to > make line numbered comments on the WD. > > For example, please look at Section 1 Introduction. There are multiple > occurrences of line 77 in this section. Scanning forward there are > multiple occurrences on line 100 starting at Section 1.4. > > This problem occurs through the WSRM 10 WD. > > The problem does not appear to occur in WSRMP WD 06. > > /paulc > > Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada > 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3 > Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 > mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] >>Sent: February 18, 2006 4:12 PM >>To: wsrx >>Subject: [ws-rx] WSRM WD 10 and WSRMP WD 06 and related documents > > uploaded > >>(candidates for CD 3) >> >>All, >> >>The editors have made the following documents ready for review as >>promised. These documents should be considered candidates for CD 3 (as >>we agreed on previous calls so as to make stable docs available for >>interop). Please send comments/corrections/etc to the list. >> >>1) WSRM WD-10 PDF format: >>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx- >>editors/download.php/16754/wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-10.pdf >> >>2) WSRM WD-09/WD-10 Diff PDF format: >>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx- >>editors/download.php/16756/wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-09-10-diff.pdf >> >>3) WSRMP WD-06 PDF format: >>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx- >>editors/download.php/16753/wsrmp-1.1-spec-wd-06.pdf >> >>4) WSRMP WD-05/WD-06 Diff PDF format: >>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx- >>editors/download.php/16755/wsrmp-1.1-spec-wd-05-06-diff.pdf >> >>5) WSRM Schema 200602: >>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx- >>editors/download.php/16741/wsrm-1.1-schema-200602.xsd >> >>6) WSRM Schema 200510/200602 Diff (diff -w): >>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx- >>editors/download.php/16748/wsrm-1.1-schema-200510-200602.dif >> >>7) WSRM WSDL 200602: >>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx- >>editors/download.php/16742/wsrm-1.1-wsdl-200602.wsdl >> >>8) WSRM WSDL 200510/200602 Diff (diff -w): >>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx- >>editors/download.php/16749/wsrm-1.1-wsdl-200510-200602.dif >> >>9) WSRMP Schema 200602: >>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx- >>editors/download.php/16743/wsrmp-1.1-schema-200602.xsd >> >>10) WSRMP Schema 200510/200602 Diff (diff -2): >>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx- >>editors/download.php/16750/wsrmp-1.1-schema-200510-200602.dif >> >> >>Please note that the editors have made three non-editorial changes > > that > >>were **not** authorized by the TC (as part of the issue resolutions), >>but follow from the context of the resolution or are bug fixes. >> >>1) In the resolution of issue i078, the WSDL changes that were > > approved > >>made TerminateSequence and TerminateSequenceResponse two separate >>operations. Clearly, they are meant to be a single operation similar > > to > >>CloseSequence/CloseSequenceResponse (that was one of the points of > > issue > >>i078). We assumed that this was indeed the intention and went ahead > > with > >>the fix. >>2) In the proposal for i087, the attribute extensibility was missing >>from the description, but was present in the pseudo-schema (with a >>malformed syntax). Since the other text in the proposal essentially > > said > >>migrate the element from WSRMP spec to WSRM and the element in WSRMP >>spec had the attribute extensibility, it was added to the spec. >>3) A new fault code wsrm:SequenceClosed was added to the WSRM schema >>(this was a mismatch between the existing spec and schema) >> >>Chairs: can we get this on next week's agenda so that the TC can > > ratify > >>this (or not). Of course if the TC does not agree with these fixes, > > the > >>editors will pull them out. >> >>Also note that the resolution of issue 83 has not been incorporated >>(requires going through the whole spec and changing wordings around >>possibly every RFC 2119 keyword). This will be done for the subsequent >>draft. >> >>-WSRM editorial team >>--
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]