- From: Paul Denning <pauld@mitre.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:11:51 -0500
- 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. Paul
Received on Friday, 26 January 2001 17:41:39 UTC