- From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 17:19:36 +0000
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > As a friendly amendment to the friendly amendment, may I suggest that we > use elements rather than attributes for carrying the fault code values. > I could live with that. I prefer attributes because they are generally easier to process since you don't have to worry about their content being broken up into sub-strings by the parser... Marc. > Elements seem more flexible as they themselves can have attributes and > structure in the future. There was also some discussion about this > earlier in this thread [10]. That, is an example would look like this: > > <soap-env:Fault> > <faultcode> > <value>soap-env:Client</code> > <subcode> > <value>rpc:BadArguments"</value> > <subcode> > <value>app:MissingArgument</value> > </subcode> > </subcode> > </faultcode> > </soap-env:Fault> > >>On last nights WG conference call I took an action to propose >>a resolution to issue 173[1]. The proposal presented here is >>intended as a friendly ammendment to the resolution proposed >>in Henrik's mail[2] >>much of whose content is included here for completeness. The >>changes are >>the result of making the "sub" fault hierarchical (as agreed on the >>call) by merging in the initial hierarchical proposal from >>Martin Gudgin[3]. >> > > Henrik > > >>[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x173 >>[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Dec/0000.html >>[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Nov/0017.html >> > [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Nov/0018.html > > -- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2001 12:22:10 UTC