W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlp-comments@w3.org > September 2001

RE: Issue 19 closed

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 21:55:40 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D0344203C@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <bryan_murray@hp.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Cc: <xmlp-comments@w3.org>

Ups - hit the wrong button :(

What I wanted to say that is that while there doesn't seem to be strong
argument for using either unqualified or qualified fault elements and so
given that there is a substantial number of implementations going one
way and you seem to be willing to go with that then the WG decided to
close the issue and preserve the current model of unqualified fault
elements.

Once again, thanks for your input and hope that you find this
satisfactory.

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
>Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 21:49
>To: 'bryan_murray@hp.com'; 'xml-dist-app@w3.org'
>Cc: 'xmlp-comments@w3.org'
>Subject: Issue 19 closed
>
>
>
>Bryan,
>
>The XML Protocol WG has been around issue 19 that you raised
>many moons ago. Given your input in 
>
>
>This is the thread that I have had with Bryan Murray regarding
>issue 19 on whether fault sub-elements should be qualified or 
>not. It seems that other than convention there is no strong 
>argument for why using unqualified sub-elements breaks or 
>limits what one can do in any way.
>
>Given this, I suggest that the WG considers closing the issue
>without changing the status-quo of SOAP 1.2.
>
>
>Thanks for your input and hope this is an acceptable outcome!
>
>Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
>mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x19
>
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2001 00:56:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:26 GMT