- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
- Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 18:30:12 +0200
- To: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org
- Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Hi again, as a followup to the original issue quoted below, after reading Anish's proposal [1], I noted a further issue. The problem is, SOAP (at least 1.2) says that header-related fault details must be headers, not in fault detail. WS-Addressing faults are arguably header-related, therefore the details should probably be formulated as headers. See SOAP 1.2's NotUnderstood header [2]. Hope it helps, Jacek [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Jun/0003.html [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#soapnotunderstood On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 17:26 +0200, Jacek Kopecky wrote: > Hi, > > as an LC comment for WS-Addressing, I'd like to note that in SOAP 1.2, > fault detail (the element S:Detail) can only contain element children, > which is apparently violated by sections 5.2 and 5.4 of WS-Addressing > SOAP binding. > > The sections say, respectively: > > 5.2: [Detail] [Missing Property QName] > 5.4: [Detail] [action] > > The values (QName, anyURI) must be somehow enclosed in elements (or > represented as elements, which is doable for the QName) to be compatible > with SOAP 1.2 fault detail. > > Best regards, > > Jacek Kopecky > > Ph.D. student researcher > Digital Enterprise Research Institute > University of Innsbruck > http://www.deri.org/ > > >
Received on Friday, 3 June 2005 16:30:23 UTC