W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > August 2001

RE: Proposal for naming the SOAP RPC return value

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 01:13:21 +0200 (CEST)
To: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@allegis.com>
cc: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0108180110190.5793-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 Michael,
 The answer is the obvious one. 8-)
 We are not restricting XML, give or take some irrelevant
whitespace used for visual formatting. 8-)

                            Jacek Kopecky

                            Idoox
                            http://www.idoox.com/




On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Michael Brennan wrote:

 > > From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@idoox.com]
 >
 > <snip/>
 >
 > >  An example of an envelope with a successful RPC response of a
 > > void procedure with no [in/out] or [out] parameters:
 > >
 > > <env:Envelope xmlns:env="http://www.w3.org/2001/06/soap-envelope">
 > >   <env:Body>
 > >     <m:SetDateResponse
 > >          env:encodingStyle="http://www.w3.org/2001/06/soap-encoding"
 > >          xmlns:m="http://example.org/2001/06/clock" >
 > >     </m:SetDateResponse>
 > >   </env:Body>
 > > </env:Envelope>
 >
 > The answer to my question seems trivially obvious to me, but just to be
 > sure, the example you cite of an RPC response for a void procedure with no
 > [in/out] or [out] parameters could also have been represented as:
 >
 > <env:Envelope xmlns:env="http://www.w3.org/2001/06/soap-envelope">
 >    <env:Body>
 >      <m:SetDateResponse
 >           env:encodingStyle="http://www.w3.org/2001/06/soap-encoding"
 >           xmlns:m="http://example.org/2001/06/clock" />
 >    </env:Body>
 > </env:Envelope>
 >
 > Correct? (I just want to make sure no one is proposing precluding this
 > abbreviated syntax.)
 >
Received on Friday, 17 August 2001 19:13:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:03 GMT