RE: [wss] Critical ISSUE (RE: [wss-comment] Enumerations of QName fault codes)

["DeMartini, Thomas" <Thomas.DeMartini@CONTENTGUARD.COM>]

+1 more.
 
&Thomas.

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: John Kemp [mailto:john.kemp@nokia.com] 
	Sent: Sun 2/1/2004 5:44 AM 
	To: ext Eve L. Maler 
	Cc: Rich Salz; Paul Cotton; Christopher B Ferris; Martin Gudgin; Reid, Irving; Peter Dapkus; DeMartini, Thomas; wss@lists.oasis-open.org 
	Subject: Re: [wss] Critical ISSUE (RE: [wss-comment] Enumerations of QName fault codes)
	
	

	ext Eve L. Maler wrote:
	
	> I would rather see the keywords enumerated in the specs than in the
	> schema, since the unioning solution seems like a hack (though a cute
	> one) that doesn't buy much. 
	
	+1 for this. If the schema that enumerates the QNames is not connected
	to the rest of the schema, then it is basically worthless for validation
	purposes anyway. Better to enumerate the values and define their
	interpretations in normative language.
	
	- JohnK