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

Re: Proposed Issue 173 Resolution (Hierarchical Fault Codes)

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 15:33:39 +0100
Message-ID: <3C1A0DC3.957BA76@crf.canon.fr>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
CC: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Couldn't we have a more open content model, like:
<soap-env:Fault>
 <faultcode>
  <soap-env:Client/>
  <subcode>
   <rpc:BadArguments>
    <app:MissingArgument/>
   </rpc:BadArguments>
  </subcode>
 </faultcode>
</soap-env:Fault>

or maybe even:
<soap-env:Fault>
 <soap-env:Client/>
  <rpc:BadArguments>
   <app:MissingArgument/>
  </rpc:BadArguments>
 </soap-env:Client>
</soap-env:Fault>

Jean-Jacques.

Mark Baker 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.
> > 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.
>
> MB
> --
> 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 09:36:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 22:28:13 UTC