- From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:28:35 -0000
- To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
- Cc: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <frystyk@microsoft.com>, "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>
We might want to consider Issue 130[1] at the same time. Gudge [1] ] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x130 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr> To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org> Cc: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <frystyk@microsoft.com>; "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>; "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 9:09 AM Subject: Issue 143: Client and Server fault code names > Issue 143 below is currently marked as editorial: > > Table speaks of 'Client' faults and 'Server' faults. I > think that this is the only place where the notion of > 'Client' and 'Server' arise. Concepts of 'Client' and > 'Server' are not developed anywhere in the document. > > It seems to me that 'Client' is more akin to 'Sender' > and 'Server' is more akin to 'Recipient'. Regardless, > I'm not sure personnally that 'Client' and 'Server' are > appropriate distinctions to make in a generic SOAP > messaging framework. > > The editors suggest that, in the prose, we amend 'Client' to read > 'Sender' and 'Server' to read 'Receiver'. > > However, the editors wonder whether they sould also be changing > the fault codes to match. Advantage: this would make the spec > more consistent. Disadvantage: possible impact on existing > implementations. > > Jean-Jacques. >
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2001 05:29:29 UTC