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

Re: CR109: Two options

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:25:24 +0100
Cc: "'WSD Public'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-id: <45D35414.8080503@crf.canon.fr>

DONE.

JJ.

Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> +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 Wednesday, 14 February 2007 18:25:46 GMT

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