- From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 03:27:50 -0700
- To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
- Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I think my approach was simpler ;-) But I also think that your approach would work. I just want to avoid having to spell out all the possible combinations. Gudge > -----Original Message----- > From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@systinet.com] > Sent: 01 September 2002 15:44 > To: Martin Gudgin > Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org > Subject: Re: Issue 292: Which fault code takes precedence > BadArguments or MissingId > > > Gudge, > I don't know if I agree with this simple resolution. If we make > it so, we lose the information that an ID was missing. > I believe the ideal solution is one where the fault code is > env:Sender/rpc:BadArguments/enc:MissingID. I think we can > achive this by saying in [2] that "if other subcodes are > available (e.g. MissingID if SOAP Encoding is used), they > SHOULD be subcodes to the BadArguments subcode". What do you think? > > Jacek Kopecky > > Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation > http://www.systinet.com/ > > > > On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Martin Gudgin wrote: > > > > > I propose we close this issue[1] by adding text to[2] > stating that the > rpc:BadArguments faultcode takes > precedence over the MissingID faultcode > ( and others of > that ilk ) > > > Gudge > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x292 > > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part2/#rpcfaults > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2002 06:28:22 UTC