Re: Comments from a Read-Through of Part 1

Christopher Ferris wrote:

> >>* Section 5.4: original: "If present, a SOAP Fault MUST appear as a direct
> >>child of the SOAP body and MUST NOT appear more than once within a SOAP
> >>Body."  Suggested replacement: "To be recognized as carrying SOAP error
> >>information, there MUST be exactly one SOAP Fault as the only child element
> >>of the SOAP body.  A SOAP fault element information item MAY appear within
> >>a header block, or as a descendant of a child element of the body; in such
> >>cases the element has no SOAP-defined semantics."
> >>
> >
> > Changed to:
> >         <p>To be recognized as carrying SOAP error information,
> >         a SOAP message MUST contain exactly one SOAP <el>Fault</el>,
> >         and that fault MUST be the only child element of the SOAP body.
> >         A SOAP fault <emph>element information item</emph> MAY appear within
> >         a SOAP header block, or as a descendant of a child <emph>element
> >         information item</emph> of the SOAP body; but, in such cases, the
> > element has
> >         no SOAP-defined semantics.</p>
>
> +1 but I liked Noah's wording better.

Reverting to Noah's wording, albeit s/there MUST be/a SOAP message MUST/

Jean-Jacques.

Received on Monday, 8 April 2002 08:42:06 UTC