Re: rationale for status quo for fault references?

Thanks Roberto for the pointers.

I wasn't at the Scottsdale F2F where this appears to have been
discussed, but I don't see anything that supports this particular
change in the summary minutes. This is a pretty major change to
make without an explicit decision AFAIAC! Maybe there was further
discussion later that I don't recall either.

I will make a proposal to reduce this back to one message. I'd
like to get some closure on the fault ref stuff too for the next
draft.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: rationale for status quo for fault references?


> Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>
> > Can someone please point me to the discussion that lead to the
> > status quo for fault refs [1] which has pointers to >= 1
> > messages? WSDL 1.1 had a pointer to one and I'm curious why
> > we decided make that be >= 1.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> >
> > [1] http://tinyurl.com/p3dg
> >
>
> The change was made in version 1.46.2.3 of wsdl12.xml on 2/6/03 (see [1]
> for the diff), then merged into the main branch on 3/5/03 (rev 1.55).
>
> Message [2] explains the rationale (look for "Why does a fault reference
> refer to possibly multiple messages?").
>
> Roberto
>
> [1]
>
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12.xml.diff?r1=1.46.2.2&r2=
1.46.2.3&only_with_tag=ComponentModelForMEPs&f=h
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Feb/0064.html

Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 00:01:11 UTC