[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: NEW Issue - WS-C: Editorial comments
Protocol: WS-Coordination Artifact: spec Section
and PDF line number: See description below. Issue
type: Editorial Related
issues: None 1.
Section 1.3 a.
Need bullets for the
two items (lines 47 and 48) the “framework allows for”. These
were present in the contributed specs. b.
Typo:
i.
Before: “isolation-level
supported signatures or other information”
ii.
After:
“transaction isolation levels or other information”. 2.
Section 1.3
Extensibility 3.
Section 1.4
Terminology 4.
Section 1.6, replace
line 92-93 with “The XML schema and the WSDL declarations defined
in this document can be found at the following locations:” 5.
Section 1.8
Normative References. Use correct SOAP version 1.2 link is
http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/. 6.
Section 2 a.
Lines 150 –
153 is a bit misleading; one may read it as “participants register using
application-defined mechanisms”. Perhaps breaking the sentence as
follows might help: “CoordinationContext elements are propagated
to parties which may need to register Participants for the activity. Context
propagation may be accomplished using application-defined mechanisms -- e.g. as
a header element of a SOAP application message sent to such parties.” b.
Line 93 -
consistency:
i.
Before:
“Coordination context”
ii.
After: “CoordinationContext” 7.
Section 3.1 a.
Two instances of a
typo:
i.
Before: “The
structure and semantics of this message is defined in”
ii.
Before: “The
structure and semantics of this message are defined in” b.
Line 259 nit -
double-spacing after “Optional.” 8.
Section 3.2.2 a.
Line 382 - typo:
i.
Before:
“contains the coordinators Endpoint Reference”
ii.
After:
“contains the coordinator’s Endpoint Reference” 9.
Section 4 a.
Line 416 - is it
really correct to refer to [Reason] as “the English language reason
element”? Suggestion: Change to “[Reason] a human readable
explanation of the fault”. 10.
Section 4.1 and 4.2 a.
Line 458 and 466
– typo:
i.
Before: “the
endpoint that generates”
ii.
After: “the
endpoint that generated” 11.
Section 4.4 and 4.5 a.
Nit – the font
seems to change in these sections. Use the same fonts as in other sections. 12.
Several examples use
the myApp prefix but this is not defined in this section. (> xmlns:myApp="http://fabrikam123.com/myApp"). Note as well that it would be better if this was based on http://www.example.com/ e.g http://www.example.com/myApp. 13.
Section 1.4
Terminology had the usual description of the “MUST”,
“MAY” etc. but the text repeatedly uses “may” (lower
case). Check the use of ‘must’ and consider whether this is
intentional throughout the doc. 14.
The WS-AT spec uses
a Courier New font for XML elements within the text (e.g. “Specifically,
the <wscoor:CoordinationContext>
header”) but WS-Coordination never does. The
use of the font aids readability. 15.
Appendix A.
Acknowledgements. 16. All
bulleted items in the specification: Indent one level deep. Proposed resolution: See issue description. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]