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 23:30:50 +1200
Message-ID: <3D37F86A.7020503@capeclear.com>
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org

Is an element which has its definition in the no-namespace schema not 
qualified? My interpretation would be that such an element is qualified 
with no-namespace (the element which defines it can be found from the 
no-namespace uri). I would say the rule is that the element name must be 
able to uniquely lead "directly" (i.e. with no special interpretation 
from a parser) to its definition.

Pete

Jacek Kopecky wrote:

> Pete,
> the case is exactly equal for all three cases - Body entries, 
>Header entries, Detail entries.
> In any case you can have a no-target-namespace schema to account 
>for unqualified entries. So we can achieve consistency either 
>way. My preference is to mandate qualification, as I indicated in 
>the last quoted sentence using other words.
> Best regards,
>
>                   Jacek Kopecky
>
>                   Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
>                   http://www.systinet.com/
>
>
>
>On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Pete Hendry wrote:
>
> > 
> > 
> > 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 07:25:33 GMT

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