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

Re: Faultactor or faultnode?

From: <amr.f.yassin@philips.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 09:18:19 -0600
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF7EB28207.EED9222E-ON06256B90.0053FC1B@diamond.philips.com>
+1 for "Faultnode".

Amr Yassin      <amr.f.yassin@philips.com>

Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
04/03/2002 08:02 AM

        To:     "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
        cc:     (bcc: AMR F Yassin/BRQ/RESEARCH/PHILIPS)
        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


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."


Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2002 10:08:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:19 UTC