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

RE: Qualification of Fault children (was RE: Updated proposal for issue 192)

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:04:21 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F192AAF@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: moreau@crf.canon.fr, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Consistency is good... I will be happy with a consistent outcome.

Stuart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen [mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com]
> Sent: 11 April 2002 15:52
> To: Williams, Stuart; Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM
> Cc: moreau@crf.canon.fr; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Qualification of Fault children (was RE: Updated proposal
> for issue 192)
> 
> 
> 
> First let me say that I don't think this is a major issue in any way.
> The primary consideration for proposing the change is 
> consistency, both
> with respect to use of qualified names and with respect to name case
> consideration. The historic reason for why fault child 
> elements are not
> qualified is that it was more consistent with the SOAP encoding but I
> don't think that's a concern anymore.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Henrik
> 
> >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.
> 
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2002 11:04:40 GMT

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