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

Hi Jacek,

Knowing that '../next' faulted might not be too useful!

Stuart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@systinet.com]
> Sent: 30 January 2002 20:46
> To: Williams, Stuart
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org; Marc Hadley
> Subject: 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 15:58:41 UTC