- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 10:40:31 +0600
- To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, "Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>, "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
We already allow them on (2) in the editor's draft. Did I over-do that? I thought that was decided in the telecon .. In any case, I'd say do both (1) and (2) for completeness and consistency. Sanjiva. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com> To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>; "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; "Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>; "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org> Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org> Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 1:45 AM Subject: 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 Saturday, 3 July 2004 00:41:45 UTC