wsrf message

Subject: Issue 100

From: Samuel Meder <meder@mcs.anl.gov>
To: wsrf-oasis <wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 08:56:26 -0700


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

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [wsrf] Issue 100
  - From: David Snelling <David.Snelling@UK.Fujitsu.com>
- Re: [wsrf] Issue 100
  - From: Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>
- Re: [wsrf] Issue 100
  - From: Ian Robinson <ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com>