W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2007

RE: CR109: Two options

From: Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 16:51:24 -0800
To: "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "'WSD Public'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01b201c74cad$981821c0$3501a8c0@DELLICIOUS>

+1 to a.  Who knows when SOAP 1.3 comes along, adding another QName to the
fault code list, and thus impossible to bind using the soap versioning
capabilities in our binding?

Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Jean-Jacques Moreau
> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 5:58 AM
> To: WSD Public
> Subject: CR109: Two options
> 
> 
> In fulfillment of my editorial item, I have come accross the following
> issue.
> 
> There are 2 ways implement the resolution for CR issue 109:
> a. restrict the {soap fault code} property to the 5 allowed QNames, when
> the underlying protocol is SOAP 1.2; or
> 
> b. restrict instead the <wsoap:code> EII.
> 
> (c. = a.+b. seems an overkill)
> 
> Pros:
> a. Easier to implement (spec-wise).
> 
> b. Disallows invalid XML in the first place.
> 
> Cons:
> a. The XML may be valid whilst the component model isn't. (Does this
> matter?)
> 
> b. Difficult to represent in the pseudo-code and in the schema.
> 
> Which option does the WG want the editors to implement? I suggest a. for
> ease of implementation.
> 
> JJ.
Received on Saturday, 10 February 2007 00:51:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:46 GMT