[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Bindings issues 57, 58, 59, elated to Assembly-96, and section 1.3of assembly cd02
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. 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? -Eric.