WSDL Binding editorial comments

Here are a few editorial comments, based on the 3/3/06 draft of the WSDL
binding:

    * The third paragraph of section 3.2 (Anonymous Element) states that
      The wsaw:Anonymous element MAY have three distinct values.  RFC
      2119 MAY refers to optionality, so strictly speaking this means
      that the wsaw:Anonymous either has three distinct or it doesn't at
      the discretion of the implementor.  This should probably read "...
      MUST have one of three distinct values ..."
    * Section 3.2.1 defines the {anonymous required} WSDL property that
      reflects the value of the wsaw:Anonymous element.  This may have
      one of the three values "optional", "required" or "prohibited". 
      The name {anonymous required} (unlike wsaw:Anonymous) strongly
      suggests a boolean, and having "prohibited" as a value for
      {anonymous required} seems confusing.  Either calling it
      {anonymous} in line with wsa:Anonymous or something like
      {anonymous EPR constraint} might be less potentially confusing.
    * The first paragraph of section 4.2.1 refers to the [action]
      property of messages and says that if no value is given it reverts
      to the SOAPAction if any.  This isn't referring to the actual
      [action] property of the message in question -- putting something
      in a WSDL doesn't automatically cause messages to contain that
      property.  Instead it's talking about what the endpoint is saying
      it will accept and produce for the [action] property. 
      Unfortunately, I'm not sure how the wording can be improved (but I
      would take an action to come up with a better wording if need be)
    * If wsaw:Action appears without wsaw:UsingAddressing it's only
      informational.  Do we want to mention that it could indicate a
      desired SOAPAction?  Probably not.
    * Nit: In section 5, we talk about properties being "mandatory" or
      "optional".  "Required" might be better than "mandatory", since
      things like RFC 2119 use "required"/"optional" and not
      "mandatory"/"optional".  On the other hand, WSN ended up changing
      a few instances of "optional" in the case of "optional elements"
      because we didn't think it really matched the RFC 2119 sense.  I
      believe we settled on "can be omitted".  The main issue is whether
      we specifically want use RFC 2119 terms here, specifically don't
      want to use them, or don't care.