- From: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:04:05 -0400
- To: Bob Cunnings <cunnings@lectrosonics.com>
- CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org
+1 Bob Cunnings wrote: > > Hello, > > I agree with Simon... I don't see any benefit in omitting the > response element or the entire envelope. I do see a penalty in the > form of unnecessary complexity. > > RC > > > On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:08:29 -0700, in soap you wrote: > > > > >I've been asked by the WG to seed discussion on issue 78 from the issues > > >list [1]. > > > > > >The crux of issue 78 can be described as follows: > > > > looks good so far, > > > > ><ProposedRewriteOfSection71> > > >The Body of a SOAP RPC message MUST contain one and only one serialization > > >root. In the case of a request message, this root is the request element. In > > >the case of a response message, this root is EITHER a response element OR a > > >fault element. > > > > > >In the case of a method with a void return type and no [out] or [in,out] > > >parameters, the response element will be empty, in which case it MAY be > > >omitted. This will cause the Body to be empty. If the Envelope contains an > > >empty Body and does not contain a Header, the entire Envelope MAY be > > >omitted. > > ></ProposedRewriteOfSection71> > > > > What's the motivation behind the last paragraph, it appear to serve no > > purpose except to complicate matters. > > > > Thanks > > Simon
Received on Friday, 15 June 2001 13:04:10 UTC