[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] Fw: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13 and WS-RM Policy WD 9
I thought I sent email to the editors list about this. The problem with
importing was that the imports ended up with the default formatting
instead of the "code" style. This meant that we had to remember to
re-format the imports before publishing. Since this is a lot more work
than merging our occasional schema and WSDL changes, I decided to go
back to the old cut & paste technique.
- gp
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 12:38 PM
> To: Doug Davis
> Cc: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx-editors] Fw: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD
> 13 and WS-RM Policy WD 9
>
> > The 'import' stuff (the links) doesn't > seem to be in
> the docs any more - any ideas why not?
>
> The importing of schema/wsdl I believe was removed by Gil. We
> are using the old cut-and-paste model.
>
> -Anish
> --
>
> Doug Davis wrote:
> >
> > Are other's ok with these changes?
> > I think all changes are applied except for the reordering of the
> > wsdl/schema/samples sections.
> > If people are ok with these I'll make these changes and
> then do a new
> > WD so people can see just the reordering.
> > Also - could someone else take a quick look over the schema/wsdl to
> > make sure the new stuff looks good? The 'import' stuff (the links)
> > doesn't seem to be in the docs any more - any ideas why not?
> > thank
> > -Doug
> >
> >
> >
> > *Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>*
> >
> > 06/08/2006 03:14 PM
> >
> >
> > To
> > Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com> cc
> > Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject
> > Re: [ws-rx-editors] Fw: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13
> and WS-RM
> > Policy WD 9
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Not all of these should be in caps.
> >
> > Looking at draft 14
> >
> (http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx-editors/download.p
> > hp/18631/wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-14.odt) there are occurrences on
> lines (not
> > counting the ones in the security consideration section):
> >
> > 82, 128, 129, 136, 313: s/may/can/
> > 391: s/may/are/
> > 223, 826: s/should/SHOULD/
> > 174, 522: s/required/REQUIRED/
> > 828, 839: s/shall/SHALL/
> > Marc Goodner wrote:
> > > I think they should all be in caps. Are there ones in
> places other
> > than the ones Doug caught already?
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 11:18 AM > To: Marc
> Goodner > Cc:
> > Doug Davis; ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: Re: [ws-rx-editors] Fw: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13
> > and WS-RM Policy WD 9 > > The keywords are not just in section 5.
> > That was just an example.
> > There are in few other places too.
> > >
> > > -Anish
> > > --
> > >
> > > Marc Goodner wrote:
> > >
> > >>As you point out, it isn't really a problem per se as it
> is. So I'd
> > say don't worry about the Sec. 5 2119 terms for now.
> Correct whatever
> > stays or is added from 121 instead.
> > >>
> > >>Marc Goodner
> > >>(425) 703-1903
> > >>(Sent from Windows Mobile 5.0)
> > >>
> > >>-----Original Message-----
> > >>From: "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
> > >>To: "Doug Davis" <dug@us.ibm.com>
> > >>Cc: "ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org"
> > >><ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > >>Sent: 6/7/06 5:36 PM
> > >>Subject: Re: [ws-rx-editors] Fw: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13
> > and >>WS-RM Policy WD 9 >> >>Looks ok to me.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>I did a search for the 2119 lowercase keywords ('may', 'should'
> > ...) >>and found that there are instances where they are not
> > capitalized (for >>example, in the sec consideration section). If
> > these were intended to >>be
> > >>2119 keywords then to be consistent with our typographical
> > convention >>we should capitalize them. If not, we should
> find suitable alternatives.
> > >>2119 does *not* require the keywords to be capitalized,
> so leaving
> > >>them as is imply that they are to be interpreted in the
> same way as
> > >>their capitalized brethren.
> > >>
> > >>-Anish
> > >>--
> > >>
> > >>Doug Davis wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>ok - Marc (editors), see if this version looks ok to you.
> > >>>-Doug
> >
>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]