- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 08:18:17 -0800
- To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>, "XML Protocol Discussion" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
As we now have a better way of indicating the "result" by using a Qname from our namespace there is no need to say anything special about it. I would just write the part "The return value accessor SHOULD be first" out of the text. Henrik Frystyk Nielsen mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com >-----Original Message----- >From: Martin Gudgin [mailto:marting@develop.com] >Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 07:35 >To: XML Protocol Discussion >Subject: RPC Mapping > > >In the editors copy of Part 2[1], section 4.1[2] states of >[in] and [in/out] parameters in the request that; > > 'These appear in the same order as in the procedure or method >signature.' > >For [out] and [in/out] parameters in the response it states; > > 'The return value accessor SHOULD be first, followed by the >accessors for the parameters which SHOULD be in the same order >as they appear in the procedure or method signature.' > >Why the inconsistency? I think we should say the same thing >for both request and response. I don't have a *strong* opinion >about whether we should enforce order or not, but I'd tend to >lean toward lining up the response description with the >description of the request. > >Gudge > >[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part2.xml >[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part2.xml#IDAGG5CF > >
Received on Friday, 8 February 2002 11:19:10 UTC