Issue 228 [was RE: updated draft to put F&P in more places]

There seem to be two proposals here:

1) Allow f&p on Interface Faults and Binding Faults
2) Also allow f&p on Fault References

Which one do we prefer?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 11:11 AM
> To: Sanjiva Weerawarana; Roberto Chinnici; Hugo Haas
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: updated draft to put F&P in more places
> 
> 
> We have an issue on this, number 228.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
> On
> > Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 7:19 AM
> > To: Roberto Chinnici; Hugo Haas
> > Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: updated draft to put F&P in more places
> >
> >
> > "Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM> writes:
> > >
> > > By the way, in the spirit of hoisting faults to the same level as
> > > operations, I think that if we had to choose between interface
> faults
> > > or fault references as the only place f&p's are allowed to appear
> at,
> > > I'd choose the former.
> >
> > Big +1 to this! I'll be a lot happier saying they're missing
> > in fault reference components rather than the way it there now.
> >
> > In any case I think we should just allow them everywhere (which
> > means just add to the two remaining places).
> >
> > Sanjiva.

Received on Friday, 2 July 2004 15:45:58 UTC