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

Re: fault/detail

From: Pete Hendry <peter.hendry@capeclear.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 18:45:45 +1200
Message-ID: <3D37B599.7070908@capeclear.com>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org

Jacek Kopecky wrote:

> In fact, why is it necessary that Body entries be qualified?


For validation. It is required that the element name in the body be 
resolvable to a schema element definition (assuming schema as the type 
system of course) so that validation can proceed on the body contents. 
Because the body is defined as <any> either there must be an xsi:type on 
all the body elements (which is not currently required - and not 
possible for rpc) or the element name must be resolvable.

Keep it qualified!

>
> Same for header entries. 8-) If anyone is worried their name could be 
> conflictful, they would namespace-qualify it. 8-)
>

Same again if you want validation (which the service provider decides 
rather than the client so you don't want the option of non-qualified 
header entries being given to the client).

>
> I'm for consistency here, and it seems the easier way to achieve it 
> will be to change Fault/Detail/* rules. 8-)
>

Again for detail entries, where their names should allow finding their 
element definition in the schema. They should only be unqualified if 
their schema definition is in the no-namespace-schema.

Pete
Received on Friday, 19 July 2002 02:40:27 GMT

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