Editorial issues from Jim Kupsch, part 2

[ghost]

This issue addresses the second batch from a set of editorial changes proposed by Jim Kupsch (@kupsch).

The first batch is documented in #277.

For the editorial changes I accept, I will make them directly in the CSD.2 provisional draft. For visibility, I will also make them in a change draft Documents\ChangeDrafts\Accepted\sarif-v2.0-editorial-kupsch-2.docx. I will check off each item when it's done.

For the editorial changes I decide not to make, I will list them at the bottom of this issue.

[ghost]

Changes I made

Section	Change	Comment
§1.2	In the definition of "line," mention that it's 1-based	I added a new definition line (number) for that, and said that it can be abbreviated to "line" when there's no ambiguity with its meaning as "a sequence of characters". I also changed the term column to column (number). There's no need for a separate definition of column since we never use that term to mean "a sequence of characters at the same offset from the start of their lines".
§3.3.2.1	Do not know what "preserve relevant detail that permit the target file to be retrieved from the VCS." means.	Changed to: "its value SHALL include sufficient information (for example, a commit id) to enable the correct version of the target file to be retrieved from the VCS"

Changes I did not make

Section	Change	Comment
	Consider "unqualified logical name" for a logical name that is not full qualified	I looked at every occurrence of "logical name" in the spec (there are 19) and I think the text is clear and unambiguous as is.
§3.9.4	Advice on viewers for missing argument	A SARIF file with such a mismatch is invalid. The spec says: "The arguments array SHALL contain as many elements as required by the maximum placeholder index among all the message strings specified by the text, richText, messageId, or richMessageId properties." The spec doesn't advise consumers how to handle an invalid file. It's the moral equivalent of "undefined behavior".

[ghost]

@kupsch I'd never merged these changes from the change draft into the provisional draft. That's done now, so closing.

I still have notes on some additional editorial changes you suggested (notably use of initial capital letter in object names to distinguish from property names), but between this issue and #277 I've addressed the bulk of them.