Re: fault/detail

Ah, OK. It seemed reasonable that we allow people to put qualified OR
unqualified elements inside detail.

I take it that you think we should mandate namespace qualification for
children of detail as we do for children of Header/Body ( re-reading your
initial e-mail I now realise this is what you said to begin with, sorry for
the misunderstanding on my part ).

I don't feel strongly either way, I guess you could argue that for the sake
of consistency we should mandate namespace qualification.

What do other people think?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Fell" <>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 1:43 AM
Subject: Re: fault/detail

Sorry, yes i meant the child elements of detail.


On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 23:02:05 +0100, in soap you wrote:

>Hi Simon,
>The spec I'm looking at[1] says of the Detail element;
>A [namespace name] of
>Did you mean detail ENTRIES[2] rather then the element itself?
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Simon Fell" <>
>To: <>
>Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 5:04 AM
>Subject: fault/detail
>> I was going over part 1 and noticed that the spec mandates namespace
>> qualified children for all the children elements [header, body, etc],
>> except for the detail element of fault, is there a reason that detail
>> shouldn't follow suit ?
>> Tx
>> Simon

Received on Thursday, 18 July 2002 02:51:31 UTC