W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > May 2005

RE: New Issue RPC Style (and proposed fix)

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 20:43:58 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A5079E99C0@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
Thank you for your comment - we tracked this as a Last Call comment
LC118 [1].  The Working Group accepted your proposal.

 

If we don't hear otherwise within two weeks, we will assume this
satisfies your concern.

 

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC118

 

 

________________________________

From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Yalcinalp, Umit
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 3:46 PM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: New Issue RPC Style (and proposed fix)

 

As I am composing the RPC style example, I noticed that the order of the
elements in designating the signature is not preserved for the values of
the wrpc:signature which I believe is unintentionally missing. 

I recommend the following small fix for bullet numbered 2 in section
3.1.1: 
Previous: 

{2. Filter the elements of this list into two lists, the first one (L1)
comprising pairs whose t component is one of {#in, #out, #inout}, the
second (L2) pairs whose t component is #return.}

New: 
{2. Filter the elements of this list into two lists, the first one (L1)
comprising pairs whose t component is one of {#in, #out, #inout}, the
second (L2) pairs whose t component is #return. During the composition
of L1 and L2, the relative order of members in the original list MUST be
preserved.}

I think this should be non-contraversial. 
Cheers, 
--umit 
Received on Saturday, 21 May 2005 03:44:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:31 GMT