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

[Matthew MacKenzie <mattm@adobe.com>]

I will incorporate all changes tomorrow (Monday).

-matt

On 30-Nov-03, at 6:22 PM, Doug Bunting wrote:

> 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.
>
>
> 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.
>