Re: Comments - WSDL 2.0 Message Exchange Patterns

"Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com> writes:
> 
> Request to Jonathan: please call for approval of an editorial change to
> part two clarifying the term "pattern" as proposed by Mark Nottingham.

+1 for it.

> > Hmm. Anything but "generation." Does "transmission", when used in a 
> > description context, really imply success?
> 
> I dunno, I think so.  Can we get other folks to state preferences?

I like the current wording of fault generation rules .. I think its
clear enough that it is generated and that what happens beyond that
is unspecified by design.

> Could we just say "fault rulesets"?

If we must ..

Sanjiva.

Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2004 23:18:35 UTC