Enumerations of QName fault codes

[Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>]

Hello,

Commenting on the recently released committee draft schema, I'd note that it
seems like a bad idea to enumerate QName fault codes in the schema. This has
the unfortunate side effect of mandating a specific namespace prefix on
faults that appear in document instances, which is nice in theory if you
could get away with it, but is not really in the spirit of XML, IMHO.

I pushed for the elimination of that approach in SAML 1.x to avoid
hardcoding the prefix in the schema and just enumerating the "logical"
Qnames in the spec. Of course, I think we (SSTC) may want to fix that once
and for all by using URIs instead, but obviously SOAP faults are Qnames now,
so in that light, my suggestion is to pull the enumeration.

Failing that, it's not impossible to declare an enumeration of Qnames using
the NOTATION type that are more prefix-agnostic, but I've not seen that used
much.

Scott C
The Ohio State Univ / Internet2
cantor.2@osu.edu