- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:22:15 +0100 (CET)
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- cc: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>, Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
So then "The Body is semantically equivalent to a header block
with ..., exactly as if it was written as
<env:Header>
...
<env:Body mustUnderstand="true">
...
</env:Body>
</env:Header> "
Am I right in this understanding? I think this example should be
written in the spec or in the primer because it makes clear that
there is no issue about "understanding" (as in mU) of the RPC
calls because the receiver has to "understand" env:Body and not
m:GetLastTradePrice and thus an unknown method is not an mU
fault as has been suggested a few times. 8-)
Jacek Kopecky
Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
http://www.systinet.com/
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
>
> >My only issue with the current spec is that we should say "the
> >SOAP body block" instead of "a SOAP body block" - reenforcing
> >this "single unit" notion.
>
> Sounds good to me.
>
> Henrik
>
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2001 04:22:18 UTC