- From: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 14:19:37 -0500
- To: "'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "'Martin Gudgin'" <marting@develop.com>, "'Rich Salz'" <rsalz@zolera.com>
- Cc: "'XML Protocol Discussion'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> Reviewing this item, I am of the impression that the proposal > included in this mail is the current status of how to deal > with multiple fault codes modulo the DataEncodingUnknown > fault being moved out of the core set and hence dealt with as > a "sub" fault? I should say that I like this proposal! > > Is this correct? I was about to send out a request for a status update as to this proposal wrt SOAP 1.3 (or whatever). I need to put a proposal together for a SAML 1.0 status code structure that is supposed to be modeled after SOAP, and was wondering if this new approach without the dots for subcodes was going to be adopted by SOAP or not, and if so, which of Martin's suggestions was being looked at. (Rich Salz correctly suggested that we could just import the SOAP fault, but there were some objections to tying the specs that way and so copying it as a starting point is more likely to happen.) Scott Cantor cantor.2@osu.edu Office of Info Tech The Ohio State Univ
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2001 14:21:13 UTC