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

Re: Resolution of issue 195

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 22:42:17 +0200 (CEST)
To: Ray Whitmer <rayw@netscape.com>
cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0205152237430.10500-100000@mail.idoox.com>
Ray, I apologize, my mistake. Only my full proposal addresses the 
array case (by removing the need to do so). It is true that my 
cleanup (the shorter proposal) did not specify anything other for 
arrays than the adopted resolution does.

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Wed, 15 May 2002, Ray Whitmer wrote:

 > Can you tell me how your proposal resolved the identification of the 
 > return value in the RPC-as-array case.  I missed it somehow the several 
 > times I read the proposals, and I tried to raise it a couple of times, 
 > that solving the struct case didn't solve the array case.  I am still 
 > unable to access the list archives to even review them.
 > 
 > Thanks,
 > 
 > Ray Whitmer
 > rayw@netscape.com
 > 
 > Jacek Kopecky wrote:
 > 
 > > Hello all. 8-)
 > > The resolution [1] surprises me greatly, IMHO it is a
 > >complication for no real reason. But anyway, I wasn't there so I
 > >missed my chance to complain, really. 8-)
 > > I have a question, though: how is the identification of the
 > >return value in RPC-as-array handled? My proposals addressed
 > >that.
 > > Apart from this, I don't think the adopted direction is actually
 > >broken, just overly complex.
 > > Best regards,
 > >
 > >                   Jacek Kopecky
 > >
 > >                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
 > >                   http://www.systinet.com/
 > >
 > >
 > >[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002May/0062.html
 > >
 > 
 > 
Received on Wednesday, 15 May 2002 16:42:20 GMT

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