W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > November 2005

RE: binding fault property placement inconsistencies

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 12:50:41 -0800
Message-ID: <37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E89EC228@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>

Thanks for your comment.  The WS Description Working Group tracked this
as a Last Call comment LC359 [1].  We accepted your suggested
resolution.

If we don't hear otherwise within two weeks, we will assume this
satisfies your concern.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/issues.html#LC359

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jacek
Kopecky
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 10:25 AM
To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
Subject: binding fault property placement inconsistencies


Hi all,

while working on the RDF binding, I've noticed an inconsistency in where
fault properties are placed in bindings: 

SOAP binding puts wsoap:code and subcodes and wsoap:header on binding
fault, and the same does HTTP mapping with whttp:code and whttp:header.
This basically shows that most specific binding fault properties are put
on the bindings faults.

Inconsistently, HTTP binding puts whttp:transferCoding on the fault
reference within operations - do we have a use case for different
transferCodings for the same faults when used in different operations?
If not, I suggest that transferCoding is moved from operation/infault
and outfault to binding/fault.

Best regards,

Jacek
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2005 20:52:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:32 GMT