W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2002

Re: Faultactor or faultnode?

From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 14:12:09 +0100
Message-ID: <008301c1db11$2af857d0$b47ba8c0@zerogravitas>
To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
+1

Gudge

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 2:00 PM
Subject: Faultactor or faultnode?


> I hate to bring this one to the list... but, in the interest of
> coherency, I would like to suggest that we rename "faultactor" to
> "faultnode".
>
> Jean-Jacques.
>
>
> Background
> --------------
> Frequency of the word "actor": 0 occurrences (part 1)
> Frequency of the word "node": 135 occurrences (part 1)
>
> Definition for "faultactor" [1] (excerpt): "The value of the
> faultactor element information item is the URI that identifies
> the SOAP node that generated the fault."
>
> Quote from Chris [2]: "If the intent (as I understand from 4.4.3
> [Now 5.4.3]) is to identify the source node of the Fault, then it
> would be my recommendation that the element be renamed so as to
> infer that semantic intent,. e.g. faultnode."
>
>
> [1]
>
http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part1.html#faultactorelement
>
> [2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Feb/0007.html
>
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2002 08:11:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:09 GMT