Comments on impl-type-documentation-wd05

I've just finished a review of the impl-type-documentation-wd05, and I
have collected the following requirements.

There are obviously editorial items, and then there are issues that
should be raised.

I've put them in this form first to see whether there's strong
disagreement that something is an issue, or if something is
border-line, perhaps it can be handled editorial.  All comments are
from the PDF form, to avoid cross-platform confusion.

Editorial:
p. 5, section 1.2

Normative references needed: XML Schema, Namespaces In XML

Need non-normative references SCA-SPRING, SCA-JEE

p. 6, section 2, line 49: extra space "produced  examples"

p. 7, section 2.1, line, 105, use of word "namespace" without reference
to "Namespaces in XML" specification.

p. 9, section 2.3, line 213: the word "language" here is suspect.  What
the rest of the paragraph refers to - annotations and additional
libraries/APIs, are not extensions to the language, but rather
extensions to the libraries for the language.  What might work better
is "language support libraries."

p. 9, section 2.4, line 229, IMP10012,  End of sentence should be "...
artifacts described by the implementation type element".

p. 10, section 2.5, line 250, delete "essentially"

Substantive:
p. 7, section 2.1 line 106, add a sentence: "The formal name of of the
implementation type is the Qualified Name of the XML element."

p. 7, section 2.1, lines 115-117: Change to read: "Formally, the XML
Schema definition of the implementation extension belongs to the
substitution group of the <sca:implementation/> element ..."

p 8, section 2.1, line 160 - Additional "SHOULD": "Implementation type
elements SHOULD allow for extension via the XML Schema "any" and
"anyAttribute" constructs.

p. 9, section 2.2.1, line 210: Question: may an implementation type
simply declare that it supports neither bi-di interfaces, nor
long-running requests?  I think the answer is "yes", and it is worth
stating that.  The currently language here allows for this exclusion,
but is somewhat weaselly on the subject. 

p. 10, section 2.5, lines 252 & 253.  The statement IMP10030 is not
supported by any existing requirements in SCA Assembly, and should not
be added here.  Per the existing Assembly language, "remotable" does
not imply WSDL 1.1 mapping, and therefore not all remotable interfaces
need to map to interface.wsdl.  In fact, it could be quite desirable
for some new implementation type to map to some new interface such as
interface.wsdl20, just to pick a random example.

p. 11, section 2.5, line 310 - Additional "SHOULD": "Implementation
type elements SHOULD allow for
extension via the XML Schema "any" and "anyAttribute" constructs.

p. 11 - at end - here is missing any description of how a new interface
MUST describe its mapping to at least one binding.

p. 12 - section 2.6, lines 344-345 - appear to be missing any normative
statements about descriptions of how export works.

p. 12, 13, section 2.6/2.6.1: Currently says

line 349-350: "It is recomended that an extension of the base mechanism
is used."

lines 382-384: "If using an extension of the base SCA mechanism for
imports and exports, the implementation type documentation must define
import and export elements that extend the base Import and Export
types. [IMP10028]

These statements are, of course, different, in that one is about mechanism
of the behavior, and the other is about type definition of the
XML Schema elements.  However, it struck me as somewhat confusing to
have them not quiet proximate to each other in the specification, and
both using the notion of "extension".  It would help me if someone
could clarify what an extension of the base mechanism might
mean.

Overall missing items:

Any description of policy related constructs.  If the implementation
type derives the component type, then how are policy & policy set
derived?  Are there any specific policies or policy intents relevant to
the implementation type?  If so, how?

Any description of what error handling means.

-Eric.

P.S. 

Side note for any of you on the Java TC - a brief traipsing through the
CI spec (HTML form)shows exactly two hits for the word error:

  
"Error! Reference source not found" and

  
JCI80002

... and not a single use of the word "Exception".  I find this lack of
discussion of error & exception handling surprising.  Not knowing
whether you've had discussions about this, I merely observe the
omission, and I leave it to TC members to figure out what, if any
actions are appropriate.