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: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 09:37:49 -0400
To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>
Cc: henrikn@microsoft.com, moreau@crf.canon.fr, skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF77745C3E.0AADF491-ON85256B98.004C1AC2@lotus.com>
Right, but putting it all together, if local/global goes away (as we seem 
to both believe is deseriable), what is the rationale for keeping 
unqualified elements?  The situation seems to be:  it was inspired by 
making it look like the encoding, but they're not marked as encoded, and 
even if they were so marked, it's not clear that the encoding any longer 
has anything to say about emphasizing unqual.  I feel like I'm missing 
something...probably am.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------







"Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>
04/11/02 09:20 AM

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

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 09:57:46 GMT

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