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

Re: fault/detail

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 17:04:39 +0200 (CEST)
To: Grahame Grieve <grahame@kestral.com.au>
cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0207181703110.25626-100000@mail.idoox.com>

 In fact, why is it necessary that Body entries be qualified? 
Same for header entries. 8-) If anyone is worried their name 
could be conflictful, they would namespace-qualify it. 8-)
 I'm for consistency here, and it seems the easier way to achieve 
it will be to change Fault/Detail/* rules. 8-)
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Grahame Grieve wrote:

 > 
 > 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?
 > 
 > 
 > Grahame
 > 
Received on Thursday, 18 July 2002 11:04:41 GMT

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