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

RE: fault/detail

From: Don Mullen <donmullen@tibco.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 09:57:23 -0400
Message-ID: <339902DC0E58D411986A00B0D03D843201B2405D@extmail.extensibility.com>
To: "'Pete Hendry'" <peter.hendry@capeclear.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org

+1 to keeping qualified.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Hendry [mailto:peter.hendry@capeclear.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 2:46 AM
> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: fault/detail
> 
> 
> 
> 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 10:02:55 GMT

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