Re: Proposal for issue 277 - part 1

On Monday, Oct 14, 2002, at 11:03 US/Eastern, Herve Ruellan wrote:

>
> Here is a list of the places where we still use QNames in both part 1 
> [2] and part 2 [3] of the spec:
>
> 2) Part 1, 5.4.7 VersionMismatchFaults
> The Envelope EII of the Upgrade EII has an AII called 'qname' of type 
> xs:QName. This attribute contains the XML qualified name of an 
> Envelope supported by a SOAP node.
>
> Proposal:
> ---------
> (i) Keep the use of QNames in 2), 3), 4), 5), and 6)
> <rationale>
> We really want QNames in those places.
> </rationale>
>
Why do we 'really want' a QName for 2. Wouldn't the namespace URI of 
the envelope version be sufficient ?

Regards,
Marc

--
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Center, Sun Microsystems.