- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 12:16:20 +0200
- To: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org, Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Two new issues?
Jean-Jacques.
Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
> > * Section 4.0: also in the list of things needed to invoke an RPC: I
> > suggest removing the item that says "An optional procedure or method
> > signature". This is really a slippery slope and primarily the business of
> > specifications like WSDL. We could replace this with "The identities
> > (which may be either positional or by name) and values of any arguments to
> > be passed."
>
> Replaced sentence, and deleted the next item ("The parameters to the procedure
> or method").
>
> BTW, why don't we similarly list the information returned by an RPC request?
> New issue?
>
> > Now it's clear that description languages aren't our business:
> > we just need to know what to pass in this message.
> >
> > * Section 4.0: should be RPC section mention any dependence on the req/resp
> > MEP? I think so. New issue?
>
> +1
>
Received on Wednesday, 10 April 2002 06:18:20 UTC