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

Re: faultactor

From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 10:00:36 -0500
Message-ID: <CB1FF0A474AEA84EA0206D5B05F6A4CB0102C3BF@S1001EXM02.macromedia.com>
To: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

I just caught up on this issue in a brief out-of-band conversation with Jean-Jacques (thanks, JJ!).

+1 to <faultnode> for the name of the slot in which to put the node URI.

Although it was certainly discussed in the various email threads about this issue, I'd just like to reiterate that a client might have no concept of what the "node URI" for a given node means, and if the fault source expects whatever origination hint it supplies to be understood by the client, <faultrole> is a better choice in many cases.

--Glen
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2002 10:02:03 GMT

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