Re: ebxml Messaging Services spec v 0.2

[Nikola Stojanovic <nhomest1@twcny.rr.com>]

Here are some comments:

 

<General>

<1>Have we agreed on naming convention (start with UpperCase) for our names?</1>

<2>Terms and fonts used for them are not consistent. See some examples below.</2>

</General>

 

<Line 5>

"v0-1"

Should this be v0-2?

</Line 5>

 

<Line 99,100>
Should line-up entries.
</Line 99,100>

 

<Line 194>

We should refer somewhere in this spec to "New Murata spec - http://www.imc.org/draft-murata-xml".

</Line 194>

 

<Line 276,277>

"<ebXMLHeaderDocument>"

We should make these names consistent with Appendix A and other parts of the document, Same applies to Appendix B.

"ebXMLHeader" instead of "ebXMLHeaderDocument"?

</Line 276,277>

 

<Line 342>

"<MessageManifest>"

Should indicate whether this attribute is required or not.

</Line 342>

 

<Line 351,353>

"<MessageManifest>"

As before, we should make these names consistent with Appendix A and other parts of the document,

</Line 351,353>

 

<Line 376>

Take it out.

</Line 376>

 

<Line 449>

Are we not requiring global uniqueness of MessageID? Have we agreed on RFC2392? What about UUID/GUID scheme (see: School Interoperability Framework (http://www.sifinfo.org/spec/SpecFinalWeb.pdf) and BizTalk Framework (http://msdn.microsoft.com/xml/articles/biztalk/biztalkfwv2draft.asp)).

</Line 449>

 

<Line 473,474>

Take them out.

</Line 473,474>

 

<Line 499,502>

Take them out.

</Line 499,502>

 

Regards,

Nikola