W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2001

RE: [R6xx, R7xx] Application of XP requirements to SOAP 1.1

From: Paul Denning <pauld@mitre.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:11:51 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <frystyk@microsoft.com>, "Oisin Hurley" <ohurley@iona.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
At 03:02 PM 2001-01-25, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> >
> > R700c - predictable failure model for extensions
> >
> > Partially addressed by the simple semantics of SOAP:fault categories
>I think it is as important if not even more so that SOAP supports a
>decentralized fault mechanism with no requirement for central
>registration of fault codes and each SOAP "block" to steal a term from
>XML protocol can report faults in a manner that is orthogonal to any
>other block.

This would be a good usage scenario to clarify R700c.

Here's a thought for the AMG:  is there a one-to-one mapping of XP Blocks 
to XP Modules, or can an XP Block be processes by more than one XP Module 
(e.g., one XP Module checks a digital signature, and another XP Module 
checks a certificate revocation list).

We probably need a additional usage scenarios to deal with error cases, 
unless it is implied that the other (non-error) usage scenarios must 
consider error handling.

Received on Friday, 26 January 2001 17:41:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:11:30 UTC