- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 07:58:45 -0500 (EST)
- To: henrikn@microsoft.com (Henrik Frystyk Nielsen)
- Cc: marc.hadley@sun.com (Marc Hadley), xml-dist-app@w3.org
> As a friendly amendment to the friendly amendment, may I suggest that we > use elements rather than attributes for carrying the fault code values. > 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> Hmm, is there any precedent for using QNAMEs in PCDATA? I know that they have been retrofitted into attribute values by common practice, but I don't believe I've seen them as content before. MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Friday, 14 December 2001 07:59:30 UTC