RE: New Issue RPC Style (and proposed fix)

Thank you for your comment - we tracked this as a Last Call comment
LC118 [1].  The Working Group accepted your proposal.

 

If we don't hear otherwise within two weeks, we will assume this
satisfies your concern.

 

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC118

 

 

________________________________

From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Yalcinalp, Umit
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 3:46 PM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: New Issue RPC Style (and proposed fix)

 

As I am composing the RPC style example, I noticed that the order of the
elements in designating the signature is not preserved for the values of
the wrpc:signature which I believe is unintentionally missing. 

I recommend the following small fix for bullet numbered 2 in section
3.1.1: 
Previous: 

{2. Filter the elements of this list into two lists, the first one (L1)
comprising pairs whose t component is one of {#in, #out, #inout}, the
second (L2) pairs whose t component is #return.}

New: 
{2. Filter the elements of this list into two lists, the first one (L1)
comprising pairs whose t component is one of {#in, #out, #inout}, the
second (L2) pairs whose t component is #return. During the composition
of L1 and L2, the relative order of members in the original list MUST be
preserved.}

I think this should be non-contraversial. 
Cheers, 
--umit