[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-j] SCA-J Working Draft 04 Review Comments
Fixed in cd01-rev1 -Anish -- Mike Edwards wrote: > > Anish, > > I'm OK with this. It is purely editorial and I think it is an improvement. > > > 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: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com> > To: Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com> > Cc: sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org > Date: 06/10/2008 17:05 > Subject: Re: [sca-j] SCA-J Working Draft 04 Review Comments > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > >>> I thought we agreed that we would update the style of the references > >>> from [1] to [RFC2119]? Or was this for the Assembly specification? > >>> > >>> > >> > >> Can't remember either, so not fixed. > >> > > I believe that this was discussed and agreed by this TC. If there is > > any doubt, let's address this on the call today. > > Is the TC ok with the editors making this change in cd01-rev1 ? Can we > have an action for the editors, so that they don't forget (would have > done this now, but have to wait for the CD01 pub to go thru). > > -Anish > -- > > Simon Nash wrote: > > Anish Karmarkar wrote: > >> All of these fixed in WD05 except as noted below. > >> > >> -Anish > >> -- > >> > >> Mark Combellack wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Having reviewed the changes in WD04 version of the SCA-J > >>> specifications, I have the following comments: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> *Editorial issues that should be fixed before we publish a CD* > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Document Footer: > >>> > >>> Document version is wrong – it has WD03 but this is WD04 > >>> > >>> Date is wrong – title page says 15 August 2008 but footer says 27 May > >>> 2008-09-15 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> PDF Document: > >>> > >>> Page numbers are wrong in the footer. It has Page 1 of 1, Page 2 of > >>> 2, etc. The Word document is correct. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> *Minor Editorial issues that don’t need to be fixed before we publish > >>> a CD* > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Page 7 – line 15 > >>> > >>> Extra space between end of sentence and full stop (.) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Page 17 – line 332 > >>> > >>> The code is coloured differently to the rest of the document. The > >>> keywords public and boolean should be purple > >>> > >>> Actually – this is a general problem throughout the specification. > >>> Some code is coloured – other code is not. > >>> > >> > >> The general problem is not fixed. > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Page 17 – line 359 > >>> > >>> Text is using the wrong font size (10 point.) The rest of the > >>> document uses 9 point font size. This is not visible in the PDF > >>> version of the specification but can be seen as the text being “more > >>> bold” in the Word version. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Page 27 – line 780 > >>> > >>> Remove extra space between ServiceReference<B> and extends > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Page 27 – line 795 > >>> > >>> Supplied is spelt wrongly – in the document it is spelt suppied > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Page 39 – line 1349 > >>> > >>> Section is missing example of using @Property with a Constructor. It > >>> has examples for the other two cases. > >>> > >> > >> Not done. > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Page 40 – line 1408 > >>> > >>> Section is missing example of using @Reference with a Constructor. It > >>> has examples for the other two cases. > >>> > >> > >> Not done. > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Page 60 – lines 2235 to 2260 > >>> > >>> Text is using the wrong font size (10 point.) The rest of the > >>> document uses 9 point font size. This is not visible in the PDF > >>> version of the specification but can be seen as the text being “more > >>> bold” in the Word version. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> *QUESTIONS* > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I thought we agreed that we would update the style of the references > >>> from [1] to [RFC2119]? Or was this for the Assembly specification? > >>> > >>> > >> > >> Can't remember either, so not fixed. > >> > > I believe that this was discussed and agreed by this TC. If there is > > any doubt, let's address this on the call today. > > > > Simon > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Mark > >>> > >>> Mark Combellack| Software Developer| Avaya | Eastern Business Park | > >>> St. Mellons | Cardiff | CF3 5EA | Voice: +44 (0) 29 2081 7624 | > >>> mcombellack@avaya.com <mailto:|mcombellack@avaya.com> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> 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 > >> > >> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/ > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]