RE: [ws-rx-editors] Some minor editorial nits in draft 15 wsrm spec sect

Well, and at this stage we should be tracking the changes we are making to the spec. We better get use to it as the tracking requirements go way up in PR.

From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 7:07 AM
To: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-rx-editors] Some minor editorial nits in draft 15 wsrm spec section 4/page 25

Wanna open an issue? Feels a bit larger than just mindless monkey editing work and we know how the tc feels about us taking some initiative :-)
-Doug

"Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>

06/28/2006 09:31 PM

To	<ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	[ws-rx-editors] Some minor editorial nits in draft 15 wsrm spec section 4/page 25

Folks,

I noticed the following in my reading. If this is covered already, please accept the apologies.

Section 4 Paragraph 1 on Page 25 may read better with a different font or using bold with fault names. Further, there is a mix of the fault name vs. the fault code in the text. Fault names are indicated with using spaces with approprite section names, i.e. WSRM Required indicated by wsrm:WSRMRequired subcode.

The paragraph intermix this usage, i.e.

"CreateSequenceRefused is a possible fault reply for this operation". It should rather read "Create Fault Refused fault is a possible fault as a reply for this operation". I figured using the elements would be harder.

Similarly WSRMRequired is a fault generated … should read "WSRM Required"

Alternatively we may consider to change the heading names.

Regardless, using a different font for fault names may improve readability.

--umit

----------------------

Dr. Umit Yalcinalp
Architect
NetWeaver Industry Standards
SAP Labs, LLC
Email: umit.yalcinalp@sap.com Tel: (650) 320-3095
SDN: https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/weblogs?blog=/pub/u/36238

ws-rx-editors message