Issue R21 and etc

[Alex Yiu <alex.yiu@oracle.com>]

Hi, all,

A updated draft of spec document is attached in this email. (I still need to update Appendix H for R3 and I have not committed the changes to the CVS yet)

I have applied Issue R16, R1, R21.

*** Monica,
for Issue R21,
May I suggest a slight different way to fix the same editorial issue?
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200610/msg00064.html

Your proposal is to have add another static analysis entry for:

"The variable references are resolved to the associated scope only and MUST NOT be resolved to the ancestor scopes.".

And to simplify the existing SA00086 to just contain the text for:

"Variables of the same names MUST NOT be explicitly declared in the associated scope. This requirement MUST be enforced by static analysis."

Current SA00086 text actually contain both pieces of text. I am wondering whether it is OK to just add one more link SA00086 in section 12.7 for the first piece of text. (As edited in the attached MS-Word Doc.)

I guess this editorial change requires less text changes and achieve the same result. Do you agree? Please let me know.

If you still prefer your original way of editoral changes, I am OK also.

*** Danny and Mark, if you guys have time, you could also verify the changes for R16 and R1.


Thanks!



Regards,
Alex Yiu

ayiu_wsbpel-specification-draft.doc