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

RE: Issues 12 & 192 (long)

From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 19:27:31 -0500
Message-ID: <CB1FF0A474AEA84EA0206D5B05F6A4CB0102C379@S1001EXM02.macromedia.com>
To: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

I need to read this whole thread, and so I apologize if I'm missing some subtlety here, but it seems like introducting the notion of "a Fault that's not a Fault" is really confusing matters in completely unnecessary ways.  If you want to return a Fault as data, wrap it in a <Response> element.  If there's a <Fault> at the root level, it's, well, a fault!  Isn't stuff like this precisely why we have a spec that describes these semantics?

Received on Wednesday, 27 March 2002 19:28:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:11:48 UTC