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

Re: fault/detail

From: Martin Gudgin <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 21:44:19 +0100
Message-ID: <008d01c23289$b90cb000$b47ba8c0@zerogravitas>
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com>; <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: fault/detail


> At 5:18 PM +0100 7/23/02, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> >Elliotte,
> >
> >Just out of curiosity do you want all the *descendants* of Detail to be
> >qualified? Or is making the *children* qualified sufficient?
> >
>
> My general principle is that I want all elements defined by the SOAP
> spec to be namespace qualified by the SOAP namespace URI defined in
> the SOAP spec.

I believe we already have this.

> (This assumes there's no good reason to use multiple
> URIs).

We have two namespace URIs;

  http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope
  http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-encoding

> Custom elements defined by users that are not defined in the
> SOAP spec should probably be namespace qualified as well, but with a
> different custom namespace.

If they're children of Header or Body they MUST be namespace qualified and
the namespace URI cannot be http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope

If they are children of Detail then they do not have to be namespace
qualified. If they are namespace qualified it can be with any namespace URI.

> If elements aren't namespace qualified,
> they should be consistently so.
>
> I specifically object to cases like this example in the Primer:
>
> <e:myfaultdetails
>          xmlns:e="http://travelcompany.example.org/faults" >
>          <message>Name does not match card number</message>
>          <errorcode>999</errorcode>
> </e:myfaultdetails>
>
> That should be
>
> <e:myfaultdetails
>          xmlns:e="http://travelcompany.example.org/faults" >
>          <e:message>Name does not match card number</e:message>
>          <e:errorcode>999</e:errorcode>
> </e:myfaultdetails>

IIRC many of us argued this to death on XML-DEV about a year ago. I wasn't
convinced then and I don't think I am now either.

Gudge
Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2002 16:44:12 GMT

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