W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlp-comments@w3.org > July 2002

Re: SOAP 1.2 LC Issue: Clarification on Use of what SOAP Faults Mean when not Direct and Only Child of Body

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:14:16 -0400
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: xmlp-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFECC9C100.02E8C9E6-ON85256C05.0047943B@lotus.com>

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen suggests:

>> in such cases, the element is not indicating a failure 
>> in the processing of that message as defined by the 
>> SOAP processing model defined in 

Sorry to disagree, but I like the original better.  In fact, we don't know 
what it does or doesn't convey.  The application but the fault into its 
data structure, and while the SOAP recommendation has nothing to say about 
its semantics, the application does, and they might well be a redundant 
specification of the fact that SOAP processing has failed.  So, I like the 
original better.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------







"Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Sent by: xmlp-comments-request@w3.org
07/19/2002 07:31 PM

 
        To:     <xmlp-comments@w3.org>
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        SOAP 1.2 LC Issue: Clarification on Use of what SOAP Faults Mean when not 
Direct and Only Child of Body




This is IMO purely editorial--in the text from [1]:

"To be recognized as carrying SOAP error information, a SOAP message
MUST contain a single SOAP Fault element information item as the only
child of the SOAP Body .

When generating a fault, SOAP senders MUST NOT include additional
element information items in the SOAP Body . A message whose Body
contains a Fault plus additional element information items has no
SOAP-defined semantics.

A SOAP Fault element information item MAY appear within a SOAP header
block, or as a descendant of a child element information item of the
SOAP Body ; in such cases, the element has no SOAP-defined semantics."

I don't think the last sentence is correct. The question is not really
whether it has SOAP-defined semantics but whether it is the result of
the processing as defined in section 2.6 [2]. I suggest changing the
last sentence to:

"A SOAP Fault element information item MAY appear within a SOAP header
block, or as a descendant of a child element information item of the
SOAP Body; in such cases, the element is not indicating a failure in the
processing of that message as defined by the SOAP processing model
defined in [2]".

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part1-20020626/#soapfault
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part1-20020626/#procsoapmsgs
Received on Monday, 29 July 2002 16:15:32 GMT

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