- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 16:25:57 -0700
- To: <xmlp-comments@w3.org>
The schema for the SOAP 1.2 envelope [1] defines a faultcodeEnum which is used by the Value EII in the SOAP fault: <xs:complexType name="faultcode"> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name="Value" type="tns:faultcodeEnum"/> <xs:element name="Subcode" type="tns:subcode" minOccurs="0"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> <xs:simpleType name="faultcodeEnum"> <xs:restriction base="xs:QName"> <xs:enumeration value="tns:DataEncodingUnknown"/> <xs:enumeration value="tns:DTDNotSupported"/> <xs:enumeration value="tns:MustUnderstand"/> <xs:enumeration value="tns:Receiver"/> <xs:enumeration value="tns:Sender"/> <xs:enumeration value="tns:VersionMismatch"/> </xs:restriction> </xs:simpleType> However, the list is not consistent with the list in [2] which does not include "DTDNotSupported". I believe the consensus on this issue, which was reached in solving issue 191 [5], is that we do not define a "DTDNotSupported" fault code in which case it should be deleted from the schema. The other inconsistency is that we in the table do not indicate whether DataEncodingUnknown is a top-level fault code or a subcode. The place this comes up is in the HTTP binding where we map the top-level fault codes to HTTP fault codes. This was discussed as part of resolving issue 196 [3] and I believe the consensus was to make it a subcode of the Sender code. FWIW, I can live with it as a top-level fault, just don't want it to be an oversight. Henrik Frystyk Nielsen mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope/ [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part1-20020626/#faultcodes [3] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x196 [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Apr/0026.html [5] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x191
Received on Friday, 19 July 2002 19:25:59 UTC