RE: DR 203: rewording?

I tend to agree with dropping DR203. Perhaps the intent of this requirement
was to
ensure that the RPC convention did not utilize semantics dependent on a
particular
language or object system? If so, I think DR 201 covers this sufficiently by
requiring
straightforward mappings to languages and object systems. 

-----Original Message-----
From: MOREAU Jean-Jacques
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Sent: 11/15/2000 11:55 AM
Subject: DR 203: rewording? 

Considering [1] and [2], I suggest we drop this requirement altogether
(out of scope).

Jean-Jacques.

[1] Stuart Williams/DR 201, DR202 and DR203: Programming Language
Bindings/ Tues 20:02 GMT+1
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Nov/0051.html

Original text:
              The XML Protocol will guarantee that RPC messages
              that encode parameters and results using the default
              encoding for the base set of data types will be valid
for
              any conformant binding of the RPC conventions. "Valid"
              in this context means that the semantics of the call
              should remain identical, irrespective of the programming

              language or object system used by the caller or
receiver.

Received on Wednesday, 15 November 2000 13:57:25 UTC