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

Re: issue 78

From: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:04:05 -0400
Message-ID: <3B2A4005.A1FC3B5C@east.Sun.COM>
To: Bob Cunnings <cunnings@lectrosonics.com>
CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org
+1

Bob Cunnings wrote:
> 
> 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 13:04:10 GMT

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