W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2002

RE: Issue 192 & R803

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 11:58:29 -0800
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D06F997A4@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>, "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Cc: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Hmm, from an architectural point of view, I am somewhat uncomfortable
make a fault special in this regard - it seems to break orthogonality
between the envelope and faults. IMO, even though we in part 1 define a
SOAP fault as the only "message-type", processing-wise the SOAP fault is
separate from the envelope in that it defines its own semantics (what
does "faultcode" mean etc.)

From a practical point of view, it also seems to make the description of
the envelope more complicated as it would mean that we can't talk about
the body anymore as a unique thing. I think we already have the
possibility for carrying SOAP fault EII even though they may not "count"
as faults because a SOAP fault is *only* a SOAP fault in the processing
sense *if* it is located as the first child EII of the body EII.

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen

>I think that if people want to transmit other stuff with the 
>fault then it
>goes in 'detail'. We place zero restriction on what goes in there...
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2002 14:58:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:19 UTC