RE: Issues 12 & 192 (long)

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?

--Glen