W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > June 2004

Re: Comments - WSDL 2.0 Message Exchange Patterns

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:18:07 +0600
Message-ID: <1f0c01c45419$c085db50$d14f4109@LANKABOOK>
To: "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>, "Mark Nottingham" <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

"Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com> writes:
> Request to Jonathan: please call for approval of an editorial change to
> part two clarifying the term "pattern" as proposed by Mark Nottingham.

+1 for it.

> > Hmm. Anything but "generation." Does "transmission", when used in a 
> > description context, really imply success?
> I dunno, I think so.  Can we get other folks to state preferences?

I like the current wording of fault generation rules .. I think its
clear enough that it is generated and that what happens beyond that
is unspecified by design.

> Could we just say "fault rulesets"?

If we must ..

Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2004 23:18:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:48 UTC