- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 11:55:29 +0200
- To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- CC: W3C Public Archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>, Nilo Mitra <EUSNILM@am1.ericsson.se>, Noah Mendelson <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Yep, that's what I'm proposing. Martin Gudgin wrote: > Ahh, OK. I'd not realized that the only place we had the mismatch was > the fault code. I agree we should not change at this time. Close issue > 288b with no action? > > Gudge > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr] >>Sent: 02 September 2002 14:49 >>To: Martin Gudgin >>Cc: W3C Public Archive; Marc Hadley; Nilo Mitra; Noah >>Mendelson; Henrik Frystyk Nielsen >>Subject: Re: Issue 288b: mustUnderstand v MusUnderstand >> >> >>Hmmm... all faults start with a capital letter, so for >>consistency we would also have to rename all other faults. >>Personally, I'd don't like the current Uppercase convention; but >>at this stage, I think we should stick with it (and maybe raise a >>WSDL issue). >> >>Jean-Jacques. >> >>Martin Gudgin wrote: >> >>>I propose we sweep the spec and make sure we use mustUnderstand >>>everywhere >>> >>>Gudge >>> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2002 05:55:44 UTC