W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > February 2002

RE: RPC Mapping

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 08:18:17 -0800
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D0656A645@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>, "XML Protocol Discussion" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

As we now have a better way of indicating the "result" by using a Qname
from our namespace there is no need to say anything special about it. I
would just write the part "The return value accessor SHOULD be first"
out of the text. 

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Martin Gudgin [mailto:marting@develop.com] 
>Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 07:35
>To: XML Protocol Discussion
>Subject: RPC Mapping
>
>
>In the editors copy of Part 2[1], section 4.1[2] states of 
>[in] and [in/out] parameters in the request that;
>
> 'These appear in the same order as in the procedure or method 
>signature.'
>
>For [out] and [in/out] parameters in the response it states;
>
> 'The return value accessor SHOULD be first, followed by the 
>accessors for the parameters which SHOULD be in the same order 
>as they appear in the procedure or method signature.'
>
>Why the inconsistency? I think we should say the same thing 
>for both request and response. I don't have a *strong* opinion 
>about whether we should enforce order or not, but I'd tend to 
>lean toward lining up the response description with the 
>description of the request.
>
>Gudge
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part2.xml
>[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part2.xml#IDAGG5CF
>
>
Received on Friday, 8 February 2002 11:19:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:06 GMT