[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrf] Issue 100
Sam, On 16 May 2005, at 8:56, Samuel Meder wrote: > > 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? This was my understanding. People might want to mix in an existing service (faults and all) with the WSRF stuff. They SHOULD be encouraged to convert the existing faults to BaseFaults to gain the benefits. MUST would be too restrictive. -- Take care: Dr. David Snelling < David . Snelling . UK . Fujitsu . com > Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe Hayes Park Central Hayes End Road Hayes, Middlesex UB4 8FE +44-208-606-4649 (Office) +44-208-606-4539 (Fax) +44-7768-807526 (Mobile)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]