W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlp-comments@w3.org > September 2002

Re: SOAP LC Issue 245

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:11:33 -0400
To: "Nilo Mitra (EUS)" <Nilo.Mitra@am1.ericsson.se>, "'xmlp-comments@w3.org'" <xmlp-comments@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200209041111.34630.reagle@w3.org>

I'm ok with this being deferred to #x299 if my concern is linked from it? 
(Could a comment be added that one possible solution is just to add nested 
XML?)

On Wednesday 04 September 2002 11:05 am, Nilo Mitra (EUS) wrote:
> Joseph:
> You raised the following issue against the SOAP 1.2 Part 0: Primer, which
> has been marked as LC issue 245 [1]:
>
> #    Example 5b
> #        <rpc:result>m:status</rpc:result>
> #        <m:status>confirmed</m:status>
>
> # This is a very odd sort of construct. I know it's just an example, but
> is # this sort of thing expected to be the norm, I would expect:
> #  <rpc:result><m:status>confirmed</m:status></rpc:result>
>
> The Primer follows the main specifications in this formulation; so your
> issue is really an issue against the Parts 1, 2 specifications. A similar
> concern against the main specifications has been raised in Issue #299
> [2].
>
> Therefore, I intend to close this issue from the point of view of the
> Primer, and will revise the example only if the main specifications
> change as a part of the resolution of Issue 299.
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x245
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x299
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 11:11:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:27 GMT