- From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 08:15:16 -0500
- To: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
- CC: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
+1 Martin Gudgin wrote: > +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 08:16:17 UTC