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

RE: Hierarchical fault codes and RPC

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:23:48 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F1928BD@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Jacek Kopecky'" <jacek@systinet.com>, Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Jacek, Marc,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@systinet.com]
> Sent: 18 January 2002 15:02
> To: Marc Hadley
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Hierarchical fault codes and RPC
>  Marc,
>  I agree with your solution.
>  It has made me think, though, about the 
> DataEncodingUnknown, DTDNotSupported, MustUnderstand faults - are 
> these not also more like subcodes to Sender faults?

I think this takes us back to the question of what our general philosophy is
with respect to the generation of faults. Which ones really, really need
MUST because something will break (be non-interoperable) if the MUST were
only a SHOULD or a MAY. I think this take us to the question of what effect
we want the generation of a fault to have.

>  Best regards,
>                    Jacek Kopecky
>                    Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
>                    http://www.systinet.com/

BTW... I too agree with Marc's choice of ii) over i). Apologies if I've
headed off topic.

Best regards

Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 11:24:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:18 UTC