MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
ebxml-msg message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] Groups - ebMSv3-Whitepaper.doc uploaded
I will incorporate all changes tomorrow (Monday).
-matt
On 30-Nov-03, at 6:22 PM, Doug Bunting wrote:
> I agree this change may be considered editorial. The technical import
> of the updated sentence aligns (stops conflicting) with our previous
> technical discussions and does not introduce a new technical
> discussion.
>
> A couple of even-more-editorial (mostly) items:
>
> * In the third paragraph of the Introduction, last sentence, "detailed
> later" should be "detailed earlier" since the previous Status section
> describes the comment mechanisms.
>
> * The Introduction could be a bit more explicit about requesting
> reviewers' priority suggestions. We are interested specifically in
> suggested priorities and TC volunteers, not just generally in
> "comments and contributions" to this document.
>
> * In item 3 of Section 1.2, I would say "release schedules for
> WS-Reliability are known but may slip" or some such. The schedules
> are not "unknown" because they were published as part of that TC
> Charter.
>
> * In Section 1.3.1 (why is this a subsection?), items 3, 4 and 5 from
> section 1.2 would also be appropriate. If this is controversial, we
> can come back to it later rather than introduce something problematic
> at this late date.
>
> * I would answer the question in item 3 of Section 2.1 as follows: No,
> the primary restriction on payloads when using this option is that
> they must be in XML format without processing instructions, document
> declarations or XML declarations and should be in an explicit
> namespace. The WS-I Basic Profile 1.0 may further restrict the
> contents of a SOAP Body to a single top level element however.
>
> * In Section 3.4, our favourite "negation" for "negotiation"
> typographic error remains.
>
> thanx,
> doug
>
> On 30-Nov-03 08:23, Dale Moberg wrote:
>> I think we should definitely make the change before public release.
>> It is an editorial matter because we all explicitly discussed the
>> change, and just managed to transpose. Are you asking us for another
>> ballot (vote) or do we just need some one more person to vote? I
>> assume
>> the latter.
>> Dale
>>