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

Issues 16 and 113: Proposed resolution

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:01:33 -0800
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D067C7744@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Cc: "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@uk.sun.com>, <asirv@webmethods.com>, "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>

The ETF has looked at issues 16 [1] and 113 [2] and here is the
recommendation that we propose for dealing with them. As usual I hope to
capture the discussion within the ETF, if not then come forward! The
resolution does depend on the proposed resolution for issue 177 [3]
which the ETF also provided a proposed resolution for [4].

We believe that if the proposed resolution [4] is accepted, then this
will in combination with the discussion at the Sep f2f [5] regarding
issue 113 (based on a mail put forward by Jacek [6]) enable us to close
issue 113. The resolution is to refer to [6] and [4] as well as this
mail. 

As the proposed resolution [4] makes it clear what it means to leave out
an accessor, we furthermore propose that the current text in section 4.1
be modified from saying:

"Each parameter accessor has a name corresponding to the name of the
parameter (see A Mapping Application Defined Name to XML Name) and type
corresponding to the type of the parameter. The name of the return value
accessor is "result" and it is namespace-qualified with the namespace
identifier "http://www.w3.org/2001/12/soap-rpc" The return value
accessor MUST be present if the return value of the procedure is
non-void. The return value accessor MUST NOT be present if the return
value of the procedure is void."

To saying

"Each parameter accessor has a name corresponding to the name of the
parameter (see A Mapping Application Defined Name to XML Name) and type
corresponding to the type of the parameter. The name of the return value
accessor is "result" and it is namespace-qualified with the namespace
identifier "http://www.w3.org/2001/12/soap-rpc" (see section 3.1 for a
description of omitted values)."

If this is accepted then we can also close issue 16 with the resolution
saying that we refer to this mail and to [4] for the resolution.

Note that although issue 78 [8] is listed as related, we will propose a
separate resolution for this issue.

Comments?

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues#x16 
[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues#x113
[3] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues#x177
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Feb/0089.html
[5] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/09/f2f-minutes.html
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Aug/0170.html
[7] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part2.html#soapforrpc
[8] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues#x78
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2002 14:02:10 GMT

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