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

Re: issue 78

From: Bob Cunnings <cunnings@lectrosonics.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 10:25:15 -0700
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <3B29E28E.6829.A51D0488@localhost>
Hello,

I agree with Simon... I don't see any benefit in omitting the 
response element or the entire envelope. I do see a penalty in the 
form of unnecessary complexity.

RC

> On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:08:29 -0700, in soap you wrote:
> 
> >I've been asked by the WG to seed discussion on issue 78 from the issues
> >list [1].
> >
> >The crux of issue 78 can be described as follows:
> 
> looks good so far,
> 
> ><ProposedRewriteOfSection71>
> >The Body of a SOAP RPC message MUST contain one and only one serialization
> >root. In the case of a request message, this root is the request element. In
> >the case of a response message, this root is EITHER a response element OR a
> >fault element.
> >
> >In the case of a method with a void return type and no [out] or [in,out]
> >parameters, the response element will be empty, in which case it MAY be
> >omitted. This will cause the Body to be empty. If the Envelope contains an
> >empty Body and does not contain a Header, the entire Envelope MAY be
> >omitted.
> ></ProposedRewriteOfSection71>
> 
> What's the motivation behind the last paragraph, it appear to serve no
> purpose except to complicate matters.
> 
> Thanks
> Simon
Received on Friday, 15 June 2001 12:25:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:01 GMT