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

Re: issue 78

From: Marc J. Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 11:59:53 +0100
Message-ID: <3B308229.88CD1E94@sun.com>
To: Frank DeRose <frankd@tibco.com>
CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Frank DeRose wrote:
> 
> 4.) Does the last sentence of Section 7.1 need to be rewritten [2] in light
> of the rewriting of Section 5.6?
>
Regardless of whether we decide on P1 or P2 in [2], I much prefer the
two possible rewrites of the end of section 7.1 in [2] than that
proposed in [1] since this matches the general consensus we reached when
discussing issue 16 starting at [3].

Or to put it another way, I think we should say:

(from [2])
"In the case of an RPC with a void return type and no [out] or [in,out]
parameters, the response element MUST be empty."

rather than:

(from [1])
"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."

Regards,
Marc.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Jun/0110.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Jun/0164.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001May/0328.html

--
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Tel: +44 1252 423740
Int: x23740
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2001 07:00:24 GMT

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