[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Review of sca-binding-ws-spec-cd02-rev3.pdf
Simon Holdsworth wrote: > > Folks, > > Thanks for reviewing these documents in detail. I think it would be > worth discussing some of these formatting issues, but do we feel that > this needs to be done prior to public review? IMHO: no. I would also like to see consistency across the SCA spec. I don't think we should change it only for the bindings specs. -Anish -- > I think we need to > resolve the following issues: > > http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-74 JMS and JCA binding > conformance section insufficient (JMS) > http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-75 JMS and JCA binding > conformance section insufficient (JCA) > http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-76 binding.ws schema uses ##any > instead of ##other > http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-77 binding.jms schema uses for > schema attribute extensibility > http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-78 binding.jca schema uses > ##any instead of ##other > > In addition sorting out editorial problems where the documents are > broken, and publish asap after that, ideally on next weeks call - June > 25th. We can then discuss these concerns during the public review > period while we get the test assertions/testcase work started. > > Regards, Simon > > Simon Holdsworth > STSM, SCA Bindings Architect; Master Inventor; OASIS SCA Bindings TC Chair > MP 211, IBM UK Labs, Hursley Park, Winchester SO21 2JN, UK > Tel +44-1962-815059 (Internal 245059) Fax +44-1962-816898 > Internet - Simon_Holdsworth@uk.ibm.com > > > *Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB* > > 18/06/2009 08:00 > > > To > OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org> > cc > > Subject > Re: [sca-bindings] Review of sca-binding-ws-spec-cd02-rev3.pdf > > > > > > > > > > Folks, > > Some comments inline... > > Yours, Mike. > > Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO. > Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC. > IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain. > Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014 Mobile: +44-7802-467431 > Email: mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com > > From: Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com> > To: OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org> > Date: 17/06/2009 18:33 > Subject: [sca-bindings] 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. > * > <mje>I'm probably biased, since this form of marking was started by me. > However, I think that background highlighting is essential - merely > changing the font colour is ineffective to the point of uselessness. We > can debate the highlight colour - if this bright yellow is too painful > for the eyes, we can choose a more subdued colour.</mje>* > > 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.* > <mje>This I simply don't agree with. It's fine as it is, in my > opinion.</mje>* > 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?* > <mje>No, you're not missing anything. This is a normative statement too > far. It is simply redundant and unecessary. The schema definition says > everything normative here.* * > I'd change the MAY to a "can" and reduce this to a simple factual > statement.</mje>* > > Line 306: "... web service binding is configured with a policy intent(s) > ..." --> "... web service binding is configured with /any /policy > /intent /...* > +1* > Should we swap sections 3 & 4, especially since section 3 makes > reference to details specified by section 4?* > +1* > 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]".* > <mje>On this point, I have the opposite point of view. I prefer to > spell out the name of the target document in all these locations. The > [xxxx] tag is intended to be a reference link to the place at the top of > the document where the location of that referenced document is actually > held. It isn't meant to be a readable part of the document text. </mje>* > Thankfully, all but one of the above are editorial... > > -Eric. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To > unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > _https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php_ > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > / > / > > /Unless stated otherwise above: > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number > 741598. > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU/ > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > / > / > > /Unless stated otherwise above: > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number > 741598. > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU/ > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]