Proposed new issue 185: clarify relationship between fault name and type of fault data

Per the discussion
in the TC call today, it seems that there are different interpretations of
allowable relationship between a fault name and the type of fault data
associated with that name.  My interpretation has always been that a fault
is a “package” consisting of a QName and a specific type of data
“payload”.  Using the same QName with different data types
would amount to “overloading” of a kind.  But clearly, my
interpretation is not the only possible one and in any case this is not clearly
stated one way or the other in the specification, which it should be, because
this is an issue of normative constraints on the usage of fault names/data.

 

I therefore
propose that we open a new issue, Issue 185, in order to discuss and clarify
this ambiguity in the text of the specification.

 

Satish