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

Re: Proposal for issue 277 - part 1

From: Herve Ruellan <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 13:42:23 +0200
Message-ID: <3DAEA21F.4070702@crf.canon.fr>
To: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org

Marc Hadley wrote:
> 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 ?

That's correct, we could just use the namespace URI of the envelope 
version. It seems even more 'natural' than giving the QName of the 
envelope EII.

Thanks for noticing this.

Hervé.
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2002 07:42:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:11 GMT