Editorial comments on Part 3

I did a quick review of Part 3. I will need to do a more thorough
reading, but I had a few initial editorial comments.
SOAP binding:
-------------
Section 2.3 about the SOAP binding talks about the "SOAP Protocol";
SOAP 1.2 talks about the underlying protocol, and I would like us to
use the same terminology as it confused me for a few minutes: "SOAP
protocol" could refer to SOAP itself.
From a readability perspective, I have found section 2 easier to read
then section 3. I believe that this is because section 3 (HTTP
binding) shows the pseudo-schema first, and then starts talking about
default values. In section 2 (SOAP binding), we hear immediately about
default values of things that we haven't heard from yet.
HTTP binding:
-------------
Section 3.3 about the HTTP binding contains the default binding rules,
in table 3-2:
- "get", "post", "put" and "delete" need to be "GET", "POST", "PUT"
  and "DELETE" as HTTP/1.1 methods are case-sensitive.
- regarding the default output serialization, I thought that PUT and
  DELETE had been defaulted to application/xml, and I actually thought
  that application/xml was the default for input and output
  serializations unless specified otherwise.
- the operation style required for DELETE is the URI style.
The next two ones may be because the editors didn't get around to
specifying HTTP binding of faults yet:
Even though the introduction to section 3 talks about binding faults,
there isn't any text about HTTP faults. I have seen an ED AI about
faultSerialization, and I think (although I'm offline so I can't do a
complete search) that there also is something to specify about error
codes — we discussed this at one of our early June telcons.
In section 3.1, the pseudo schema for fault uses SOAP attributes.
Regards,
Hugo
-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - https://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/