W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > September 2002

Re: Added resolution to issue 320

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 20:54:04 -0400
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Nilo Mitra" <EUSNILM@am1.ericsson.se>, "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFF1939483.0F1B2E7F-ON85256C2A.00024DBF@lotus.com>

I think this is close, but have a few quibbles both in terms of editorial 
style and content.

<latest>
SOAP fault codes are intended for use by software to provide an 
algorithmic mechanism for identifying the fault. SOAP fault codes are 
organized as a linked list of XML qualified names allowing a SOAP node to 
identify the fault category at an increasing level of detail of the SOAP 
fault.

...2 paras follow...

</latest>

<proposed>
SOAP fault codes are XML qualified names, and are intended to provide a 
means by which faults are rigorously classified.   A hierarchical list of 
SOAP codes and associated supporting information is included in every SOAP 
fault message, with each such code identifying the fault category at an 
increasing level of detail.

(..remaining 2 paras unchanged...)

</proposed>

Reasons for above suggestions:

* I don't think that what's going on is really 'algorithmic', and it's not 
clear to me that it's only software that gets to do the identifying. 

* I'm not sure it's better, but I used the word "classified" rather than 
"identified" in the first para.  I think "identified" could be taken in 
the sense of identifying one soap fault message vs. another, and that's 
not what we mean here.   The codes exist even before they are used, and 
the same code is applied to many separate instances of faults (two 
separate messages, each using in illegal encoding.)  So, I went with 
classified.  Note that where I retained "identifying" it clearly says 
identifying a category, which I think is correct.

* I don't think the lists are linked, in the traditional data structures 
sense.  I'm used to seeing the term "linked" list applied to structures 
connected by pointers, as distinct from array-based, etc. lists.

* I'm not 100% set on the word "rigorously", but I think it's OK, and 
closer to the mark than algorithmic.

What do you all think?  Worth changing?  Further refinements?

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2002 20:55:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:22 GMT