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

Re: Faultactor or faultnode?

From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 08:15:16 -0500
Message-ID: <3CAB0064.9050600@sun.com>
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 GMT

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