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

RE: A minor question

From: Rogers, Tony <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 15:24:37 +1100
Message-ID: <7997F38251504E43B38435DAF917887F40C3D3@ausyms23.ca.com>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Cc: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "David Hull" <dmh@tibco.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Oh, you'll have a more than adequate excuse for anything, but you won't be coherent enough to use it :-)

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org on behalf of Martin Gudgin 
	Sent: Sat 19-Mar-05 9:57 
	To: Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM 
	Cc: Jonathan Marsh; Mark Baker; David Hull; public-ws-addressing@w3.org 
	Subject: RE: A minor question
	
	


	Great! It's going to be 29 time zones in less than a week by the time I
	get home tomorrow
	
	Sounds like I'll have plenty of excuse for just about anything!
	
	;-)
	
	Gudge
	
	> -----Original Message-----
	> From: Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM [mailto:Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM]
	> Sent: 18 March 2005 13:46
	> To: Martin Gudgin
	> Cc: Jonathan Marsh; Mark Baker; David Hull;
	> public-ws-addressing@w3.org
	> Subject: Re: A minor question
	>
	> I'd think you could use that as an excuse for much more serious
	> infractions than mere verbosity ;-).
	>
	> On Mar 18, 2005, at 3:48 PM, Martin Gudgin wrote:
	>
	> >
	> > 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.
	> >>>>
	> >>>>
	> >>
	> >>
	> >
	> >
	> ---
	> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
	> Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
	>
	>
	
	
	
Received on Saturday, 19 March 2005 04:25:11 GMT

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