W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > December 2001

Re: Proposed Issue 173 Resolution (Hierarchical Fault Codes)

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 07:58:45 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200112141258.HAA17104@markbaker.ca>
To: henrikn@microsoft.com (Henrik Frystyk Nielsen)
Cc: marc.hadley@sun.com (Marc Hadley), xml-dist-app@w3.org
> As a friendly amendment to the friendly amendment, may I suggest that we
> use elements rather than attributes for carrying the fault code values.
> 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>

Hmm, is there any precedent for using QNAMEs in PCDATA?  I know that
they have been retrofitted into attribute values by common practice,
but I don't believe I've seen them as content before.

Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Friday, 14 December 2001 07:59:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:17 UTC