- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>
- Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 01:13:21 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@allegis.com>
- cc: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Michael,
The answer is the obvious one. 8-)
We are not restricting XML, give or take some irrelevant
whitespace used for visual formatting. 8-)
Jacek Kopecky
Idoox
http://www.idoox.com/
On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Michael Brennan wrote:
> > 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 19:13:22 UTC