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

RE: Faultactor or faultnode?

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 15:59:46 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F192A74@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
+1

I'll hop on this bandwagon too :-)

Stuart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr]
> Sent: 03 April 2002 14:00
> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> 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#faul
> tactorelement
> 
> [2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Feb/0007.html
> 
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2002 10:00:24 GMT

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