RE: Proposed rewrite of Part 1, section 2 (long) from Jacek Kopecky on 2002-01-30 (xml-dist-app@w3.org from January 2002)

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 22:27:36 +0100 (CET)
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0201302224030.28603-100000@mail.idoox.com>

 Stuart,
 that's certainly right, but then any extension that assumes its 
headers will be targeted at "../next", should handle the failures 
in a way, for example by employing the fault detail element.
 Also, knowing that "urn:foo" faulted when nothing was targeted 
at it might not be too useful either. 8-)
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

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

On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Williams, Stuart wrote:

 > Hi Jacek,
 > 
 > Knowing that '../next' faulted might not be too useful!
 > 
 > Stuart
 >

Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2002 16:27:37 UTC