[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Review of sca-binding-ws-spec-cd02-rev3.pdf
As I'm trying to read through these documents, I find the highlighting
of the normative statements is actually quite annoying. It makes it
much harder to read the document. In addition, I had to force my PDF
viewer to no color, because the default "highlight" color with my
windowing theme exactly matches the highlight color chosen for the
document, and searching for a result in a normative statement would
then not show where the search result was found. My suggestion would
be to change the color of the normative text itself to a gray just shy
of black, rather than changing the background color of the text.|
Also seems to me that the normative numbering declarations could be superscripted, so that it is easier to read the text and let my eyes skip over the reference numbering.
Those are just my personal preferences, though.
Line 101-103 - sentence is repeated.
Line 207: "WSDL 1.1 message parts can point to an XML Schema element declaration or an XML Schema type." Mismatched parallelism. Ought to be "... can point either to an XML Schema element declaration or to an XML Schema type declaration."
Line 219: "Port" --> "port"
Line 265 - 266: "SCA runtime implementations MAY provide additional metadata that is associated with a web service binding." Unfortunately, this sentence seems so out of context to me, that it is difficult to figure out what it was actually referring to. Are we talking here about providing additional metadata in the generated WSDL document? That would push section 2.5 to be section 2.4.1. However, I think what we really mean here is that we really mean that an SCA binding.ws element might contain additional metadata to help configure non-SCA aspects of a web-services binding. However, that's not a normative constraint on the runtime, so then I don't get the normative statement.
I think I need to raise an issue for the above. Am I missing something?
Line 306: "... web service binding is configured with a policy intent(s) ..." --> "... web service binding is configured with any policy intent ...
Should we swap sections 3 & 4, especially since section 3 makes reference to details specified by section 4?
Line 443-444: Parallelism again: "MUST follow either the rpc-literal or document-literal pattern." --> "MUST follow either the rpc-literal pattern or the document-literal pattern."
Line 461: "of “Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1” [SOAP11] " --> This is an inconsistent reference. So far as I've discovered, we don't inline the titles of the target of the reference elsewhere, so this should change to just "of [SOAP11]".
Thankfully, all but one of the above are editorial...