Re: Qualification of Fault children (was RE: Updated proposal for iss ue 192)

 If I remember correctly, this was discussed on one of the F2Fs 
and the resolution was "it's not broken, let's not fix it". It's 
issue no. 19, by the way. 8-)
 I prefer making fault children ns-qualified - overturning the
previous resolution to #19, but if we don't go there, I won't 
object.
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Martin Gudgin wrote:

 > 
 > ----- Original Message -----
 > From: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
 > To: "'Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM'" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
 > Cc: <henrikn@microsoft.com>; <moreau@crf.canon.fr>; <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
 > Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 5:04 PM
 > Subject: Qualification of Fault children (was RE: Updated proposal for iss
 > ue 192)
 > 
 > 
 > > I'd be ok either way, just felt that its wasn't something that had been
 > > discussed much on the list. This question is also a bit orthogonal to the
 > > other pieces in Henrik's proposal on 192 [1] - and really a different
 > issue.
 > >
 > > I don't think making the names of the children a Fault unqualified was an
 > > oversight. I think it was quite a deliberate choice on the part of the
 > > schema maintainer - I'm sure Gudge will correct me if I'm wrong about
 > that.
 > 
 > My understanding is as follows;
 > 
 > 1.    In most cases SOAP Encoding results in unqualified descendants.
 > 
 > 2.    Fault, although not marked
 > soap:encodingStyle='http://www.w3.org/2001/12/soap-encoding' was designed to
 > match this default.
 > 
 > 3.    When SOAP 1.1 was being put together, local element declarations in
 > XML Schema were ALWAYS unqualified ( infamous issue 208 ).
 > 
 > Actually, thinking about it now, I can't remember whether 2 followed from 3
 > or 1. Either way, history gives us unqualified descendants of fault which is
 > what the schema maintainer put in the schema ;-)
 > 
 > Gudge
 > 
 > 
 >

Received on Wednesday, 10 April 2002 22:33:27 UTC