- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 11:58:29 -0800
- To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>, "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- Cc: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Hmm, from an architectural point of view, I am somewhat uncomfortable make a fault special in this regard - it seems to break orthogonality between the envelope and faults. IMO, even though we in part 1 define a SOAP fault as the only "message-type", processing-wise the SOAP fault is separate from the envelope in that it defines its own semantics (what does "faultcode" mean etc.) From a practical point of view, it also seems to make the description of the envelope more complicated as it would mean that we can't talk about the body anymore as a unique thing. I think we already have the possibility for carrying SOAP fault EII even though they may not "count" as faults because a SOAP fault is *only* a SOAP fault in the processing sense *if* it is located as the first child EII of the body EII. Henrik Frystyk Nielsen mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com >I think that if people want to transmit other stuff with the >fault then it >goes in 'detail'. We place zero restriction on what goes in there...
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2002 14:58:31 UTC