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

Re: fault/detail

From: Martin Gudgin <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:54:33 +0100
Message-ID: <000601c232f8$1dcbd110$b47ba8c0@zerogravitas>
To: "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>

You missed one, http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-rpc

Remember, thou shalt count to three, not four and five is way out,

Looks like we have two too many

;-)

Gudge

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>; "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: fault/detail


> 
> On Tuesday, July 23, 2002, at 09:44 PM, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> >
> > We have two namespace URIs;
> >
> >   http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope
> >   http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-encoding
> >
> and http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-faults. We have *three* 
> namespace URIs:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope
> http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-encoding
> http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-faults
> 
> and http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-upgrade. *Amongst* our 
> namespaces are such diverse URIs as:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope
> http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-encoding
> http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-faults
> http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-upgrade
> 
> :-)) (with apologies to Monty Python).
> 
> Marc.
> 
> PS on a slightly more serious note I think it would be pragmatic to 
> combine the envelope, faults and upgrade namespaces but I don't 
> think its worth doing another last call for this alone.
> 
> >> 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
> >
> >
> >
> --
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
> XML Technology Center, Sun Microsystems.
> 
Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2002 05:54:20 GMT

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