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

Re: Issue 192 & R803

From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 12:34:32 +0100
Message-ID: <3CBABAC8.8020305@sun.com>
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
CC: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>, Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:

>>I don't understand why making the fault a child of the 
>>envelope instead 
>>of the body breaks orthogonality with the envelope or changes the 
>>processing model - could you elucidate further ?
> Currently the processing rules are identical for a SOAP message
> independent of the contents of the Body, be it a fault, a purchase
> order, an event notification or something else. If we make the fault
> special then we need a special processing model for that as compared to
> all other possible message types.

OK, thanks. I guess that's OK provided there are no special processing 
rules for faults other than:

"An ultimate SOAP receiver MUST correctly process the immediate children 
of the SOAP body (see 5.3 SOAP Body). However, Part 1 of this 
specification (this document) mandates no particular structure or 
interpretation of these elements, and provides no standard means for 
specifying the processing to be done."

and that such processing may only occur after mu checking.

>>In the spec we don't say anything about the fault having to be 
>>the first 
>>child EII of the body, only that it must be a direct child and that 
>>there should only be one fault EII.
>>We don't disallow other EIIs within the body along with a fault and we 
>>don't say anything about processing the fault or any EIIs that may 
>>accompany it.
> The April 11 snapshot has as part of the definition of a SOAP fault text
> that limits when a SOAP fault is truly a fault [1] and when it is merely
> "data" (I referred to this in my proposal):

> "To be recognized as carrying SOAP error information, a SOAP message
> MUST contain exactly one SOAP Fault as the only child element of the
> SOAP body. A SOAP fault element information item MAY appear within a
> SOAP header block, or as a descendant of a child element information
> item of the SOAP body; but, in such cases, the element has no
> SOAP-defined semantics."

I think this was added quite recently - no ? I thought the text you 
quote was part of your proposal rather than spec text already. Its not 
in the March 23rd snapshot. Do you recall which issue resolution covered 
this change, I can't see any mention in the change log ?


Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Monday, 15 April 2002 07:34:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:19 UTC