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

Re: RPC -- is it a module. One last try.

From: Ray Whitmer <rayw@netscape.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 15:01:45 -0800
Message-ID: <3AB7E159.7050705@netscape.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
CC: marwan sabbouh <ms@mitre.org>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Mark Nottingham wrote:

> 
> I also support this view.

So, assuming that this view prevails that RPC is a module, the original 
question was:

Are modules permitted to extend the fault codes, should we have extra 
fault codes in the core for RPC, or should we ignore these added 
failures for an RPC module such as missing a required argument?

How is a missing RPC argument different from elements of a message that 
won't validate or values that are out of range?  I do not know the 
intent of those who designed the fault codes, whether they should be 
fixed or extensible.

Ray Whitmer
rayw@netscape.com
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2001 17:55:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:59 GMT