- From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:37:55 +0100
- To: "Martin Gudgin" <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com>
- Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
On Tuesday, July 23, 2002, at 09:44 PM, Martin Gudgin wrote: > > We have two namespace URIs; > > http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope > http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-encoding > and http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-faults. We have *three* namespace URIs: http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-encoding http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-faults and http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-upgrade. *Amongst* our namespaces are such diverse URIs as: http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-encoding http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-faults http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-upgrade :-)) (with apologies to Monty Python). Marc. PS on a slightly more serious note I think it would be pragmatic to combine the envelope, faults and upgrade namespaces but I don't think its worth doing another last call for this alone. >> 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 http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope > > 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="http://travelcompany.example.org/faults" > >> <message>Name does not match card number</message> >> <errorcode>999</errorcode> >> </e:myfaultdetails> >> >> That should be >> >> <e:myfaultdetails >> xmlns:e="http://travelcompany.example.org/faults" > >> <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. > > Gudge > > > -- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> XML Technology Center, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2002 05:38:03 UTC