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

Re: New issues (was: Comments from a Read-Through of Part 1)

From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 14:16:40 +0100
Message-ID: <006401c1dca4$21219200$b47ba8c0@zerogravitas>
To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>, "Carine Bournez" <carine@w3.org>
Cc: "Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
To: "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>; "Carine Bournez" <carine@w3.org>
Cc: "Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>;
<xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 1:45 PM
Subject: New issues (was: Comments from a Read-Through of Part 1)


> Suggested issues, raised by Noah.
>
> Jean-Jacques.
>
> Issue1
> ------
> * Section 5.4.2: Should we allow xml:lang on faultString?  This
> will
> probably be a concern for the internationalization folks.

Yes we should. If the WG agrees, I will amend the envelope schema ( and
corresponding spec pieces ) accordingly


>
> Issue2
> -------
> * Section 5.4.1: the third bullet indicates that a fault code
> element may
> have one or two child element information items.  The first is a
> mandatory
> value, the second is an optional subcode.  Question: do we
> require these to
> occur in order?  The current specification does not say, and
> therefore
> implies that order is insignificant.  The same question arises
> later in
> this section in the discussion of subcode.

Yes, they are required to appear in order. I've updated the prose to reflect
the schema.

Gudge
Received on Friday, 5 April 2002 08:16:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:09 GMT