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

Re: Issue 192 & R803

From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 11:43:46 +0100
Message-ID: <3CAC2E62.3080406@sun.com>
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
CC: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>, Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:

> 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.)

I don't understand why making the fault a child of the envelope instead 
of the body breaks orthogonality with the envelope or changes the 
processing model - could you elucidate further ?

> 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.

In the spec we don't say anything about the fault having to be the first 
child EII of the body, only that it must be a direct child and that 
there should only be one fault EII.

We don't disallow other EIIs within the body along with a fault and we 
don't say anything about processing the fault or any EIIs that may 
accompany it.


Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Thursday, 4 April 2002 05:43:54 UTC

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