- From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 06:50:31 -0500
- To: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- CC: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
+1 but I could live with Henrik's fa proposal as well. Marc Hadley wrote: > Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > >> As a friendly amendment to the friendly amendment, may I suggest that we >> use elements rather than attributes for carrying the fault code values. > > > > > I could live with that. I prefer attributes because they are generally > easier to process since you don't have to worry about their content > being broken up into sub-strings by the parser... > > Marc. > > >> Elements seem more flexible as they themselves can have attributes and >> structure in the future. There was also some discussion about this >> earlier in this thread [10]. That, is an example would look like this: >> >> <soap-env:Fault> >> <faultcode> >> <value>soap-env:Client</code> >> <subcode> >> <value>rpc:BadArguments"</value> >> <subcode> >> <value>app:MissingArgument</value> >> </subcode> >> </subcode> >> </faultcode> >> </soap-env:Fault> >> >>> On last nights WG conference call I took an action to propose a >>> resolution to issue 173[1]. The proposal presented here is intended >>> as a friendly ammendment to the resolution proposed in Henrik's >>> mail[2] much of whose content is included here for completeness. The >>> changes are the result of making the "sub" fault hierarchical (as >>> agreed on the call) by merging in the initial hierarchical proposal >>> from Martin Gudgin[3]. >>> >> >> Henrik >> >> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x173 >>> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Dec/0000.html >>> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Nov/0017.html >>> >> [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Nov/0018.html >> >> > > >
Received on Friday, 14 December 2001 06:51:15 UTC