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

Re: Added resolution to issue 320

From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 09:00:55 -0400
Cc: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "Nilo Mitra" <EUSNILM@am1.ericsson.se>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, www-archive@w3.org
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Message-Id: <5944A6EA-C006-11D6-847D-0003937568DC@sun.com>

+1, looks good to me.

Marc.

On Tuesday, Sep 3, 2002, at 20:54 US/Eastern, 
noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

> 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
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
--
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Center, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 09:00:58 GMT

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