- From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 15:59:46 +0100
- To: "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
+1 I'll hop on this bandwagon too :-) Stuart > -----Original Message----- > From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr] > Sent: 03 April 2002 14:00 > To: xml-dist-app@w3.org > Subject: Faultactor or faultnode? > > > I hate to bring this one to the list... but, in the interest of > coherency, I would like to suggest that we rename "faultactor" to > "faultnode". > > Jean-Jacques. > > > Background > -------------- > Frequency of the word "actor": 0 occurrences (part 1) > Frequency of the word "node": 135 occurrences (part 1) > > Definition for "faultactor" [1] (excerpt): "The value of the > faultactor element information item is the URI that identifies > the SOAP node that generated the fault." > > Quote from Chris [2]: "If the intent (as I understand from 4.4.3 > [Now 5.4.3]) is to identify the source node of the Fault, then it > would be my recommendation that the element be renamed so as to > infer that semantic intent,. e.g. faultnode." > > > [1] > http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part1.html#faul > tactorelement > > [2] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Feb/0007.html >
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2002 10:00:24 UTC