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