- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:01:33 -0800
- To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
- Cc: "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@uk.sun.com>, <asirv@webmethods.com>, "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
The ETF has looked at issues 16 [1] and 113 [2] and here is the recommendation that we propose for dealing with them. As usual I hope to capture the discussion within the ETF, if not then come forward! The resolution does depend on the proposed resolution for issue 177 [3] which the ETF also provided a proposed resolution for [4]. We believe that if the proposed resolution [4] is accepted, then this will in combination with the discussion at the Sep f2f [5] regarding issue 113 (based on a mail put forward by Jacek [6]) enable us to close issue 113. The resolution is to refer to [6] and [4] as well as this mail. As the proposed resolution [4] makes it clear what it means to leave out an accessor, we furthermore propose that the current text in section 4.1 be modified from saying: "Each parameter accessor has a name corresponding to the name of the parameter (see A Mapping Application Defined Name to XML Name) and type corresponding to the type of the parameter. The name of the return value accessor is "result" and it is namespace-qualified with the namespace identifier "http://www.w3.org/2001/12/soap-rpc" The return value accessor MUST be present if the return value of the procedure is non-void. The return value accessor MUST NOT be present if the return value of the procedure is void." To saying "Each parameter accessor has a name corresponding to the name of the parameter (see A Mapping Application Defined Name to XML Name) and type corresponding to the type of the parameter. The name of the return value accessor is "result" and it is namespace-qualified with the namespace identifier "http://www.w3.org/2001/12/soap-rpc" (see section 3.1 for a description of omitted values)." If this is accepted then we can also close issue 16 with the resolution saying that we refer to this mail and to [4] for the resolution. Note that although issue 78 [8] is listed as related, we will propose a separate resolution for this issue. Comments? Henrik Frystyk Nielsen mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues#x16 [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues#x113 [3] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues#x177 [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Feb/0089.html [5] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/09/f2f-minutes.html [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Aug/0170.html [7] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part2.html#soapforrpc [8] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues#x78
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2002 14:02:10 UTC