- From: Simon Fell <soap@zaks.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:51:18 -0700
- To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:43:08 -0400, in soap you wrote: >My recollection is that there was no clear consensus. > >> 3. static: "SOAP-RPC-Return-Value" > >Presumably namespace qualified? Doesn't attempting to NS qualify #3 make it an exception to the normal section 5 rules for accessors ? >I like #2, re-using the containing struct name. One less magic name to >consider. > > /r$ I know i'm somewhat late to the discussion, but i'd prefer #1 or #2 over #3. Cheers Simon
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2001 19:51:53 UTC