W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > March 2005

RE: A minor question

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:48:26 -0800
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B6338051E8525@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Cc: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "David Hull" <dmh@tibco.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

Can I use jet-lag and crossing 21 time zones as an excuse for verbosity?

Gudge 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Marsh 
> Sent: 18 March 2005 12:44
> To: Martin Gudgin; Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM
> Cc: Mark Baker; David Hull; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: RE: A minor question
> 
> Or, more simply and directly:
> 
> /soap:Envelope/soap:Body[count(*)=1]/soap:Fault
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-
> > addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Martin Gudgin
> > Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 6:50 AM
> > To: Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM
> > Cc: Mark Baker; David Hull; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: A minor question
> > 
> > 
> > Sorry, yes, my XPath was sloppy. It should be
> > 
> > /soap:Envelope/soap:Body/soap:Fault[count(preceding-sibling::* |
> > following-sibling::*)=0]
> > 
> > Gudge
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM [mailto:Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM]
> > > Sent: 18 March 2005 06:19
> > > To: Martin Gudgin
> > > Cc: Mark Baker; David Hull; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> > > Subject: Re: A minor question
> > >
> > > On Mar 17, 2005, at 6:07 PM, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A fault is any message for which the following XPath expression
> > > > evaluates to true;
> > > >
> > > > /soap:Envelope/soap:Body/soap:Fault
> > > >
> > > > See[1], specifically;
> > > >
> > > > "To be recognized as carrying SOAP error information, a SOAP
> > message
> > > > MUST contain a single SOAP Fault element information item
> > > as the only
> > > > child element information item of the SOAP Body"
> > > >
> > > Picky, but I don't think the XPath captures "the only child
> > > EII of the
> > > SOAP Body", e.g. the following satisfies the XPath but not
> > > the complete
> > > criteria:
> > >
> > > <soap:Envelope>
> > >    <soap:Body>
> > >      <foo:bar/>
> > >      <soap:Fault>
> > >      ...
> > >      </soap:Fault>
> > >    </soap:Body>
> > > </soap:Envelope>
> > >
> > > Marc.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#soapfault
> > > >
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> > > >> Sent: 17 March 2005 14:56
> > > >> To: Martin Gudgin
> > > >> Cc: David Hull; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> > > >> Subject: Re: A minor question
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 02:16:11PM -0800, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I've not seen an answer to this question, so here goes;
> > > >>>
> > > >>> A fault is just a reply. So the relationship would be reply.
> > > >>
> > > >> +1
> > > >>
> > > >>> You can
> > > >>> tell it's a fault because SOAP defines a fault message very
> > > >>> specifically.
> > > >>
> > > >> Actually, it doesn't.  But let's not go there. 8-)
> > > >>
> > > >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-
> > app/2002Mar/0007.html
> > > >>
> > > >> Mark.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > ---
> > > Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
> > > Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
> > >
> > >
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 18 March 2005 20:48:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:04 GMT