RE: Issue with soap-rpc:result

 Tim,
 every application block can contain data in any data model. The
fault detail is an example of such a block, just like the Body. 
The structure of the Fault element itself is modeled using XML 
Schema so that the core SOAP does not depend on one of the 
adjuncts, since the adjuncts are meant to be optional. 8-)
 It's exactly the same with env:Header and env:Body elements, 
both are declared in an XML Schema and both may contain data in 
any encoding.
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

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



On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Tim Ewald wrote:

 > So why are SOAP faults modeled in XSD and not the SOAP data model? Can't
 > a Fault's detail element contain a serialized graph? Why the
 > inconsistency?
 > 
 > Tim-
 > 
 > > -----Original Message-----
 > > From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org 
 > > [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jacek Kopecky
 > > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 5:22 AM
 > > To: Don Box
 > > Cc: soap@zaks.demon.co.uk; xml-dist-app@w3.org
 > > Subject: RE: Issue with soap-rpc:result
 > > 
 > > 
 > >  Don,
 > >  AFAIK SOAP faults are not modeled using the SOAP Encoding, 
 > > they are described using XML Schema (as the rest of the 
 > > envelope), so I think you want to advocate the status quo. 
 > > 8-)  Best regards,
 > >  
 > >                    Jacek Kopecky
 > > 
 > >                    Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
 > >                    http://www.systinet.com/
 > > 
 > > 
 > > 
 > > On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Don Box wrote:
 > > 
 > >  > Since SOAP/1.2 explicitly relies on XML Schema, I would 
 > > advocate making  > faults based solely on XML Schema (e.g., 
 > > literal). This is especially  > important since the fault 
 > > itself may be indicating that an unknown  > encoding was used!
 > > 
 > > 
 > 
 >

Received on Friday, 8 February 2002 10:40:11 UTC