RE: Added resolution to issue 320

I think that's fine--I would remove the "rigorously" though unless we
feel we are particularly sloppy elsewhere and want to call it out
explicitly here that we are not ;)

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [] 
>Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 17:54
>To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
>Cc: Nilo Mitra; Marc Hadley; Martin Gudgin; Jean-Jacques 
>Subject: Re: Added resolution to issue 320
>I think this is close, but have a few quibbles both in terms 
>of editorial 
>style and content.
>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 
>...2 paras follow...
>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...)
>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 
>sense.  I'm used to seeing the term "linked" list applied to 
>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 Wednesday, 4 September 2002 12:30:42 UTC