Re: fault/detail

----- Original Message -----
From: "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <>; <>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: fault/detail

> At 5:18 PM +0100 7/23/02, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> >Elliotte,
> >
> >Just out of curiosity do you want all the *descendants* of Detail to be
> >qualified? Or is making the *children* qualified sufficient?
> >
> My general principle is that I want all elements defined by the SOAP
> spec to be namespace qualified by the SOAP namespace URI defined in
> the SOAP spec.

I believe we already have this.

> (This assumes there's no good reason to use multiple
> URIs).

We have two namespace URIs;

> Custom elements defined by users that are not defined in the
> SOAP spec should probably be namespace qualified as well, but with a
> different custom namespace.

If they're children of Header or Body they MUST be namespace qualified and
the namespace URI cannot be

If they are children of Detail then they do not have to be namespace
qualified. If they are namespace qualified it can be with any namespace URI.

> If elements aren't namespace qualified,
> they should be consistently so.
> I specifically object to cases like this example in the Primer:
> <e:myfaultdetails
>          xmlns:e="" >
>          <message>Name does not match card number</message>
>          <errorcode>999</errorcode>
> </e:myfaultdetails>
> That should be
> <e:myfaultdetails
>          xmlns:e="" >
>          <e:message>Name does not match card number</e:message>
>          <e:errorcode>999</e:errorcode>
> </e:myfaultdetails>

IIRC many of us argued this to death on XML-DEV about a year ago. I wasn't
convinced then and I don't think I am now either.


Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2002 16:44:12 UTC