- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 15:33:39 +0100
- 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