- From: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 15:25:54 -0400
- To: Frank DeRose <frankd@tibco.com>
- CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Frank, w/r/t issue 16, I think that the proposed rewording needs to be tightened up. I would therefore offer a friendly amendment to your proposed resolution. I suggest that: ?A SOAP RPC reply message MUST contain either a response or a fault in the body. A SOAP RPC reply message MUST NOT contain both a response and a fault in the body. In the case of a method with a void return type and no [out] or [in,out] parameters, the response MUST be empty.? should be rephrased as follows: ?A SOAP RPC reply message MUST contain either a response or a fault in the body. A SOAP RPC reply message MUST NOT contain both a response and a fault in the body. In the case of a method with a void return type and no [out] or [in,out] parameters, the response body MUST be empty.? ^^^^ Cheers, Chris Frank DeRose wrote: > > Issues 16 and 78 were scheduled for discussion at the last face-to-face > meeting of the WG, but this discussion was postponed due to lengthy > discussion of more pressing issues. The RPC Task Force (RPCTF) is currently > reviewing these issues and would like input from the SOAP community. Please > review the discussion of issue 16 [1] and issue 78 [2] and provide any > further feedback to the RPCTF. Thanks. > > Frank DeRose > TIBCO Software Inc. > 3165 Porter Dr > Palo Alto, CA 94303 > 650-846-5570 (vox) > 650-846-1267 (fax) > frankd@tibco.com > www.tibco.com > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001May/0328.html > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Jun/0110.html
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2001 15:26:06 UTC