- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 12:50:41 -0800
- To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
- Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
Thanks for your comment. The WS Description Working Group tracked this as a Last Call comment LC359 [1]. We accepted your suggested resolution. If we don't hear otherwise within two weeks, we will assume this satisfies your concern. [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/issues.html#LC359 -----Original Message----- From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jacek Kopecky Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 10:25 AM To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org Subject: binding fault property placement inconsistencies Hi all, while working on the RDF binding, I've noticed an inconsistency in where fault properties are placed in bindings: SOAP binding puts wsoap:code and subcodes and wsoap:header on binding fault, and the same does HTTP mapping with whttp:code and whttp:header. This basically shows that most specific binding fault properties are put on the bindings faults. Inconsistently, HTTP binding puts whttp:transferCoding on the fault reference within operations - do we have a use case for different transferCodings for the same faults when used in different operations? If not, I suggest that transferCoding is moved from operation/infault and outfault to binding/fault. Best regards, Jacek
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2005 20:52:12 UTC