Re: [wsrf] Issue 100

[Ian Robinson <ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com>]

I believe the spirit of the resolution, as you say, was to allow
applications to use non-BaseFaults.

Regards,
Ian Robinson
STSM, WebSphere Messaging and Transactions Architect
IBM Hursley Lab, UK
ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com


                                                                           
             Samuel Meder                                                  
             <meder@mcs.anl.go                                             
             v>                                                         To 
                                       wsrf-oasis                          
             16/05/2005 16:56          <wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org>         
                                                                        cc 
                                                                           
                                                                   Subject 
                                       [wsrf] Issue 100                    
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           





I've changed the MUST to a SHOULD, but am wondering if the current
text isn't still to restrictive. Even with the change to a SHOULD it
seems to imply that all faults declared in WSDL MUST be a Base Fault.
Can I assume that the spirit of the resolution was to allow the
declaration of non-BaseFaults faults in WSDL?

/Sam