- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 07:52:18 -0700
- To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
First let me say that I don't think this is a major issue in any way. The primary consideration for proposing the change is consistency, both with respect to use of qualified names and with respect to name case consideration. The historic reason for why fault child elements are not qualified is that it was more consistent with the SOAP encoding but I don't think that's a concern anymore. Thanks, Henrik >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.
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2002 10:52:42 UTC