This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
The current spec defines WSDL1.1 faults using the InformationType to relate to the appropriate WSDL Message Type. However, if an operation has multiple faults, each with the same Message Type, then the only thing that distinguishes them is the fault name. However, the 'interaction' syntax does not support specifying a name associated with the "respond" exchange, when it is receiving a fault - it only specifies the Information Type, which in turn only links to the WSDL message type. The actual fault name is not referenced anywhere. For consistency across WSDL1.1 and WSDL2, perhaps the InformationType could refer to the actual type structure (which would be a change related to the WSDL2 support in the current spec), and then the 'exchange' is changed so that when it is used to receive a fault (i.e. an ExceptionType), the name field is the actual fault name - which could map onto WSDL1.1 and WSDL2. Regards Gary and Steve
From meeting on 11-jan-05 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2005Jan/att-0002/2005-01- 11_WS-Chor_Notes.txt: Discussion deferred as deemed to be a technical issue.
PROPOSAL SOURCES: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005May/0074.html ADOPTED
agreed resolution/wording at the June 2005 F2F: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2005Jun/att- 0003/June_2005_F2F_minutes_-_0.txt
Fixed as per comment above.
group notification of status change: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member- ws-chor/2005Jul/0004.html
no comments from group so closed confirmed: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2005Jul/0004.html