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 15:35:33 +0100
Message-ID: <0cfe01c1e166$24e33b70$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>
You're not missing anything. I'm not making myself clear. All my mail
intended to do was provide some historical context for the decision. I would
personally be happy for all the children of Fault to be qualified.

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 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: Qualification of Fault children (was RE: Updated proposal for
iss ue 192)


> 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 10:33:59 GMT

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