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

Re: Qualification of Fault children (was RE: Updated proposal for iss ue 192)

From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 19:43:19 +0100
Message-ID: <08b501c1e0bf$974b62c0$b47ba8c0@zerogravitas>
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM'" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <henrikn@microsoft.com>, <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM'" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <henrikn@microsoft.com>; <moreau@crf.canon.fr>; <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 5:04 PM
Subject: Qualification of Fault children (was RE: Updated proposal for iss
ue 192)


> I'd be ok either way, just felt that its wasn't something that had been
> discussed much on the list. This question is also a bit orthogonal to the
> other pieces in Henrik's proposal on 192 [1] - and really a different
issue.
>
> I don't think making the names of the children a Fault unqualified was an
> oversight. I think it was quite a deliberate choice on the part of the
> schema maintainer - I'm sure Gudge will correct me if I'm wrong about
that.

My understanding is as follows;

1.    In most cases SOAP Encoding results in unqualified descendants.

2.    Fault, although not marked
soap:encodingStyle='http://www.w3.org/2001/12/soap-encoding' was designed to
match this default.

3.    When SOAP 1.1 was being put together, local element declarations in
XML Schema were ALWAYS unqualified ( infamous issue 208 ).

Actually, thinking about it now, I can't remember whether 2 followed from 3
or 1. Either way, history gives us unqualified descendants of fault which is
what the schema maintainer put in the schema ;-)

Gudge
Received on Wednesday, 10 April 2002 14:41:53 GMT

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