BaseFaults comments from HP

["Murray, Bryan P." <bryan.murray@hp.com>]

I have done a critical review of WS-BaseFaults. I am listing several
issues below but most of them are editorial. All comments are from the
Public Review version.

Bryan



Discuss in TC?
--------------

1. line 240: why does it matter what the name of the message part is? I
suggest removing this requirement.

2. The BaseFault type is defined, but there is no where except in
examples where there are instructions about how to place an element of
this or a derived fault pe into a SOAP fault message. The reader never
knows that this element is placed as a child of the SOAP fault
detail/Detail element except by examining the examples.





Editorial
---------

3. line 62: OGSI should not be mentioned in the introduction, it is
already mentioned in the acknowledgement section

4. line 79: Remove this paragraph because there is no use of XML Infoset
in the spec

5. line 83: there is no entry in the references section named "WSDL
2.0".

6. line 234-247: there are references to step numbers even though no
numbers actually appear in the spec. I suggest adding '1.' to line 234,
'2.' to line 237, '3.' to line 239, and '4.' to line 242.

7. line 337: bad reference

8. line 347: remove reference to Infoset - it is not used

9. line 394: blank page

10. The footer has a different document identifier than is on page 1.