RE: [ws-rx-editors] WD editorial comments/questions

[Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>]

yes I got those too - and in the names
of the files.

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM  |  Web Services Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM T/L 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com

Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>

02/01/2007 12:21 PM

To	Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc	Gilbert Pilz <gpilz@bea.com>, "ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org" <ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject	RE: [ws-rx-editors] WD editorial comments/questions

Did you catch the 2006 in
the schema and wsdl files? You’re right that those were in the zip. I
was paying to much attention to file extensions instead of the names. L
 
From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 6:28 PM
To: Marc Goodner
Cc: Gilbert Pilz; ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-rx-editors] WD editorial comments/questions
 

Marc, 
 thanks for the review.  I've made all of the changes you suggested.
 As for the issue with the links I'll have to look at that one later.
 OO was showing them ok so I think it will require a bit more investigation.
 The xml files should have been kept in-sync with the specs and should
be part of the zip file.  I haven't the examples yet to make sure
the xml is valid, yet. 

Editors, 
 I made all of these edits into the next WD of each spec.  I moved
the current WDs into the "Closed Editor Drafts" folder.  I
did not update the main TC's Latest... docs or the zip file.  I didn't
want to confused people by updating it in the middle of a review period.

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM  |  Web Services Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM T/L 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com

Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>

01/31/2007 06:43 PM

To	Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, Gilbert Pilz <gpilz@bea.com>
cc	"ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org" <ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject	[ws-rx-editors] WD editorial comments/questions

 

I’m still need to do a second pass, but here are the results from my first pass. Page numbers are from the pdfs without diff lines.
 
All three specs
·         Footers need the dates updated. I recommend scanning throughout for 2006 to update to 2007 (copyright, etc.)
·         Link issues from RM PDF, I stopped checking further after I discovered that these don’t seem to be issues in the generated html. Is there a known issue with the tool you are using to generate the pdf? I noticed similar issues in the other specs. Even in the html the links to internal document bookmarks, e.g. section headings or references are often either broken or not active.
o   Spec location link is not active
o   Anish’s email is not hyperlinked in the editor list, the others are
o   None of the references in the abstract and the other sections are links though they look like links
o   In status section the IPR link is not active, 2^nd link to TC page is not active
o   TOC, Section heading links are broken, Appendix entries are not links
 
RM
·         Page 8, section 2.3 “in stead” should be “instead”
·         Page 23, section 3.9, under Nack definition, the second to last sentence “within a AcknowledgementRange” should be “within an AcknowledgementRange”
·         Page 25, section 4, should WSRM Required be WSRMRequired? The section heading for that fault has the space so its probably correct as it is.
·         Page 29, section4.7 “can not” should be “cannot”
 
RM Policy
·         No other issues.
 
MakeConnection
·         Page 10, section 3.2 2^nd to last bullet “E.g. In” should be “E.g. in”
 
 
Questions
The schema/wsdl has changed. Are the separate files ready?
Have the XML examples in the specs been checked to make sure they are valid?