I guess this would *nominally* help because it would allow both
wsse:faultCodeNumberOne and ws:faultCodeNumberOne, but it begs the
question of defining an enumeration in the first place since it also
allows all other QNames, and still makes the wsse: prefix a unique
first-class citizen. Also, would wsse:faultCodeNumberOne be recognized
as a QName itself -- and thus equivalent to ws:faultCodeNumberOne -- if
it were merely designated an enumeration string?
Eve
Paul Cotton wrote:
>
> ... adding Gudge since he is not on the WSS list.
>
> /paulc
>
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> 17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3
> Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329
> mailto:
>
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:]
>>Sent: January 30, 2004 6:58 PM
>>To: Rich Salz
>>Cc: Reid, Irving; Peter Dapkus; DeMartini, Thomas; -
>>open.org
>>Subject: RE: [wss] Critical ISSUE (RE: [wss-comment] Enumerations of
>
> QName
>
>>fault codes)
>>
>>Maybe Gudge would treat us to an example?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Christopher Ferris
>>STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
>>email:
>>blog: http://webpages.charter.net/chrisfer/blog.html
>>phone: +1 508 377 9295
>>
>>Rich Salz <> wrote on 01/30/2004 05:54:47 PM:
>>
>>
>>>>It's not a question of whether we use Qnames or URIs. SOAP forces
>
> us
>
>>to
>>
>>>>use Qnames. The problem is that it's *very* *very* bad to apply an
>>>>"enumeration" restriction to a Qname in element or attribute
>
> content,
>
>>>>and the WSS .xsd does exactly that.
>>>
>>>Gudge has this trick he showed off at the WS-I face to face
>
> yesterday,
>
>>>he calls it "open enumeration."
>>>
>>>Make the item in question be a union of string/enumeration and
>
> qname.
>
>>> /r$
--
Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems cell +1 781 354 9441
Web Products, Technologies, and Standards eve.maler @ sun.com
