Editorial comments on WSRM WD 10

[Matthew Lovett <MLOVETT@uk.ibm.com>]

Hi all,

Here are some editorial nits that I
noted down. They are not serious, but it would be nice if they were folded
into the next WD. (Certainly no need to fix them for the CD we are about
to create.) All line numbers apply to wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-10.pdf

165: Wordsmith?

236: 2 full stops, Next sentance starts
adruptly. Perhaps reword to "The <wsrm:CreateSequence> element
..."

335: Some of the text is blue, it seems
to be an embedded mailto: link!

338: Should there be an element wildcard
as well as an attribute one? The (non-normative) schema includes both.

368 & 381: Should we drop the quotes
around 'close'?

369-370: Drop the 2 commas?

382: <wsrm:Final> is defined below
not above

382: Drop the "Note, " preamble
from the sentance, reword to "Wherever possible the SequenceClosed
Fault SHOULD be used in place of the SequenceTerminated Fault to allow
the RM Source to still receive Acknowledgements."

431-433: Drop the 3 commas?

435: Drop the "Note, " preamble,
reword to "Under normal usage ..."

563: I don't think we can 'advertise
the timing of acks in policy' any more...

610: Reword "... when the Sequence
is no longer receiving new message for the specified sequence." to
"... when the Sequence is closed."

659-660: "CreateSequenceRefused
is a possible fault reply for this operation." In the given context,
there is no operation! Perhaps better to say "CreateSequenceRefused
is a possible fault reply for the CreateSequence operation."

718 & 728: The latter constrains
the language used for the faultstring to be in english, the former does
not. Which is correct?

863: Missing space.

923: The schema was included in a box
in prior revisions. I preferred it that way! The same comment applies to
the wsdl file.

1173: The line numbers have gone wrong
from here onwards.

Thanks

Matt