- 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>
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 UTC