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

Re: fault/detail

From: Martin Gudgin <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 10:55:02 +0100
Message-ID: <001201c22e41$4f0477c0$b47ba8c0@zerogravitas>
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, "Grahame Grieve" <grahame@kestral.com.au>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Grahame Grieve" <grahame@kestral.com.au>
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 8:04 AM
Subject: Re: fault/detail


>
> At 16:51 18/7/2002, you wrote:
>
> >Ah, OK. It seemed reasonable that we allow people to put qualified OR
> >unqualified elements inside detail.
> >
> >I take it that you think we should mandate namespace qualification for
> >children of detail as we do for children of Header/Body ( re-reading your
> >initial e-mail I now realise this is what you said to begin with, sorry
for
> >the misunderstanding on my part ).
> >
> >I don't feel strongly either way, I guess you could argue that for the
sake
> >of consistency we should mandate namespace qualification.
>
> A number of in production services and SOAP libraries do not qualify the
> elements in the details. Why make it mandatory - what is the advantage?

Well I can think of two advantages;

1.    Ensures we don't get name collisions in content of detail

2.    Is consistent with Header and Body.

But as I said, I don't feel strongly either way.

Gudge
Received on Thursday, 18 July 2002 05:55:45 GMT

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