That seems fine to me. We'll need a way to get the additional info data in
as well.
Ralph
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Sanderson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 12:41 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: diagnostics
>
>
> > Why won't they just be z39.50 diagnostics? We've got no
> interoperability
> > otherwise. If we need to add new ones to z39.50, then
> that's fine. But
> > let's not just start over with a new set.
>
> So will the soap Fault code be something like, in SOAP 1.1:
>
> <Envelope>
> <Body>
> <Fault>
> <faultcode>z39.50:6</faultcode>
> <faultstring>Too many boolean operators</faultstring>
> </Fault>
> </Body>
> </Envelope>
>
>
> The faultcode value has to be a qualified name. Which means
> that we also
> need a namespace for z39.50 diagnostics, and SRW diagnostics.
> (As far as I
> understand it)
>
> (And of course is different in SOAP 1.2)
>
> Rob
>
>
> ,'/:. Rob Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
> ,'-/::::. http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
> ,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
> ,'---/::::::::::. Twin Cathedrals: telnet:
> liverpool.o-r-g.org 7777
> ____/:::::::::::::. WWW:
> http://liverpool.o-r-g.org:8000/
> I L L U M I N A T I
>
|