- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 20:54:04 -0400
- To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Nilo Mitra" <EUSNILM@am1.ericsson.se>, "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, www-archive@w3.org
I think this is close, but have a few quibbles both in terms of editorial style and content. <latest> SOAP fault codes are intended for use by software to provide an algorithmic mechanism for identifying the fault. SOAP fault codes are organized as a linked list of XML qualified names allowing a SOAP node to identify the fault category at an increasing level of detail of the SOAP fault. ...2 paras follow... </latest> <proposed> SOAP fault codes are XML qualified names, and are intended to provide a means by which faults are rigorously classified. A hierarchical list of SOAP codes and associated supporting information is included in every SOAP fault message, with each such code identifying the fault category at an increasing level of detail. (..remaining 2 paras unchanged...) </proposed> Reasons for above suggestions: * I don't think that what's going on is really 'algorithmic', and it's not clear to me that it's only software that gets to do the identifying. * I'm not sure it's better, but I used the word "classified" rather than "identified" in the first para. I think "identified" could be taken in the sense of identifying one soap fault message vs. another, and that's not what we mean here. The codes exist even before they are used, and the same code is applied to many separate instances of faults (two separate messages, each using in illegal encoding.) So, I went with classified. Note that where I retained "identifying" it clearly says identifying a category, which I think is correct. * I don't think the lists are linked, in the traditional data structures sense. I'm used to seeing the term "linked" list applied to structures connected by pointers, as distinct from array-based, etc. lists. * I'm not 100% set on the word "rigorously", but I think it's OK, and closer to the mark than algorithmic. What do you all think? Worth changing? Further refinements? ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2002 20:55:26 UTC