Position on issue 195

 Hi all, since I won't be able to attend the following two 
telcons, I'd like to state my position on one of the remaining 
two issues - 195 - RPC return value element.
 Firstly, the status quo seems to need a change, at least some 
clarification, as I suggested in [1].
 Secondly, I disagree with Tim Ewald, the originator, that 
mandating the return value edge name fully is a bad idea, I think 
that if we mandate any name at all (the only viable means of 
knowing the return value edge) it must be a fully qualified name. 
See [3].
 I have had a second proposal, [2], which removes the return 
value notion altogether and thus removes the object of this 
issue.
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Apr/0236.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Apr/0113.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Apr/0226.html

Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 08:07:51 UTC