- From: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@Allegis.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:53:43 -0700
- To: "'jacek@idoox.com'" <jacek@idoox.com>, "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@idoox.com]
<snip/>
> An example of an envelope with a successful RPC response of a
> void procedure with no [in/out] or [out] parameters:
>
> <env:Envelope xmlns:env="http://www.w3.org/2001/06/soap-envelope">
> <env:Body>
> <m:SetDateResponse
> env:encodingStyle="http://www.w3.org/2001/06/soap-encoding"
> xmlns:m="http://example.org/2001/06/clock" >
> </m:SetDateResponse>
> </env:Body>
> </env:Envelope>
The answer to my question seems trivially obvious to me, but just to be
sure, the example you cite of an RPC response for a void procedure with no
[in/out] or [out] parameters could also have been represented as:
<env:Envelope xmlns:env="http://www.w3.org/2001/06/soap-envelope">
<env:Body>
<m:SetDateResponse
env:encodingStyle="http://www.w3.org/2001/06/soap-encoding"
xmlns:m="http://example.org/2001/06/clock" />
</env:Body>
</env:Envelope>
Correct? (I just want to make sure no one is proposing precluding this
abbreviated syntax.)
Received on Friday, 17 August 2001 19:08:58 UTC