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

 Stuart,
 I don't think we want to identify the node that faulted because
nowhere in the messages nodes are identified in any way (other
than via extensions maybe). I think identifying the role is quite 
sufficient.
 And I think I should add that I, too, could live with 
non-renamed actor, even though I prefer renaming a lot.
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

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



On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Williams, Stuart wrote:

 > Hi Jacek,
 > 
 > Interesting point... when faulting do we want to/need to
 > provide a standard way to identify both the role and the
 > node that faulted?
 > 
 > On the substantive issue, I prefer the narrative of the
 > NoActor version, but I could live without changing the
 > attribute name to role - although that would perhaps leave
 > some potential for confusion.
 > 
 > Regards
 > 
 > Stuart
 > 
 > 
 > > -----Original Message-----
 > > From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@systinet.com]
 > > Sent: 30 January 2002 14:38
 > > To: Marc Hadley
 > > Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
 > > Subject: 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 15:46:13 UTC