- From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 19:27:31 -0500
- To: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I need to read this whole thread, and so I apologize if I'm missing some subtlety here, but it seems like introducting the notion of "a Fault that's not a Fault" is really confusing matters in completely unnecessary ways. If you want to return a Fault as data, wrap it in a <Response> element. If there's a <Fault> at the root level, it's, well, a fault! Isn't stuff like this precisely why we have a spec that describes these semantics? --Glen
Received on Wednesday, 27 March 2002 19:28:24 UTC