Re: Proposed rewrite of Part 1, section 2 (long)

 +1 on the NoActor version (with renaming from actor to role).
 Obviously, section 4 will be affected by the change, too. What 
may not be obvious is that faultactor should also be renamed to 
faultrole if we go this route.

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Marc Hadley wrote:

 > All,
 > 
 > The editors have been tasked with improving the overall readability of
 > the specification and as part of this we would like to propose a rewrite
 > of section 2. This section has been the subject of a great deal of
 > "micro-editing" and we are concerned not to lose any detail that may
 > have been hard fought over in the past. To aid your review we are
 > including redlined versions of each proposal that show the differences
 > between the current WD and the proposed rewrite. The redlined version's
 > filenames are suffixed with "_RL".
 > 
 > The editors would actually like to propose 2 alternative rewrites, both
 > of which remove the term "anonymous actor" which is not used elewhere in
 > the specification and is not in the glossary:
 > 
 > (i) The first "SoapProcessingModel.htm" and "SoapProcessingModel_RL.htm"
 > is the less radical of the two and maintains the current terminology
 > around SOAP actor and roles.
 > 
 > (ii) The second "SoapProcessingModelNoActor.htm" and
 > SoapProcessingModelNoActor_RL.htm" proposes more radical changes. The
 > specification's current use of the word actor is counter-intuitive, e.g.
 > we speak about SOAP nodes assuming roles named by SOAP actors. In real
 > life roles are not named by actors, actors play roles and this can lead
 > to some confusing wording. The second rewrite assumes that we rename the
 > "actor" attribute to "role".
 > 
 > Marc (on behalf of the other editors: Gudge, Jean-Jacques and Henrik)
 > 
 >

Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2002 09:38:16 UTC