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: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:20:53 +0100
Message-ID: <0cdd01c1e15b$b6c56d70$b47ba8c0@zerogravitas>
To: "Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <henrikn@microsoft.com>, <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Noah,

I agree that if we remove the local/global stuff then 1 will no longer hold.
I was trying to provide a historical context for why the children of fault
were unqualified

Gudge

----- Original Message -----
From: "Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>
Cc: <henrikn@microsoft.com>; <moreau@crf.canon.fr>; <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>;
<xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: Qualification of Fault children (was RE: Updated proposal for
iss ue 192)


> Martin Gudgin writes:
>
> >> 1.    In most cases SOAP Encoding results in unqualified descendants.
>
> As you know, I've raised the question of whether we should have
> local/global distinction in the encoding, and I think you expressed
> tentative agreement with my intuition that the distinction should go.  If
> so, I'm not sure I see why your statement about SOAP encoding would
> continue to hold?  I would have thought we were completely neutral at that
> point.  As I've pointed out, the rest of the SOAP envelope is uniformly
> qualified.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2002 09:19:20 GMT

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