Re: Exchange type issue

> Steve Ross-Talbot wrote: I concur with Charlton. It does not change 
> the semantics and so has  no major impact but does have a clear 
> benefit of adding clarity to  descriptions. Difficult to see why we 
> should not do it.
>
> Cheers
> Steve T

mm1: In our investigation, we found no substantive reason not to model 
this with existing MEP already defined and used in WS-CDL. There was no 
need for a new pattern and in fact it was redundant. Thank you.

Received on Monday, 6 November 2006 15:19:28 UTC