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.