- From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 16:59:20 +0100
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- CC: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>, Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > > Hmm, I found this in the Mar 23 snapshot [1] > > "A SOAP fault is used to carry error information > within a SOAP message. > > "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." > > Which in the April 11 snapshot was moved down a paragraph and now says: > > "To be recognized as carrying SOAP error information, > a SOAP message MUST contain exactly one SOAP Fault > as the only child element of the SOAP body. A SOAP > fault element information item MAY appear within a > SOAP header block, or as a descendant of a child > element information item of the SOAP body; but, > in such cases, the element has no SOAP-defined > semantics." > > From what I can see, this was part of incorporating Noah's comments for > part 1. > Looks that way, to me this is a subtle change in semantics, the first version says that the body of a fault message can only have one fault in the body but says nothing about any other EIIs in the body, the second that the body can only have one fault and no accompanying EIIs. We should be careful when incorporating comments like this that we don't subvert the WG process... Either way, the text wasn't there when I posted the message you were replying to which explains the disconnect. Regards, Marc. > > [1] > http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/03/23/soap12-part1-1.37.html#soapfault > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Apr/0094.html > -- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Monday, 15 April 2002 11:59:24 UTC