  RE: Issue 182: Fault Code restriction: "At Most One Fault
Proposa l"  From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 14:51:15 -0800 Message-ID:
<79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D05A540E4@red-
msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> Cc: "Christopher Ferris"
<chris.ferris@sun.com>, "Williams, Stuart"
<skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>    >This is in
response to several comments earlier in the thread.  I read
>these to be generally along the lines of "why mandate exactly
>one fault if  >in certain MEPs it will be dropped on the floor
anyway" and/or  >the closely  >related "it would be unwise to
relay on it".  With respect, I  >and see this as reasoning
inappropriately from the converse.  >There do indeed exist cases
in which the fault is not reliably  >to anyone, and in that
sense of questionable value.  However, the  >important point is
that there are important cases in which the  >of exactly one
fault or successful response is important, and may be  >relied
upon.  Consider t