RE: service name as local part of a qname

Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] wrote:
>Note that the "it must not be referenceable as a QName" restriction
>does NOT go away with this change. In fact, it becomes even more
>critical.
>
>To be able to refer to directly point to a port via a QName, one 
>would have to require portNames to be unique across the entire
>namespace. IMO that's the wrong direction ..

I agree. (It appears I flipped a bit in my text.) 

>So does that mean I can update the part1 doc too and close the
>issue? When was this changed in the schema??

I believe Martin added this during a conference call; let's double check
at the next teleconference.

--Jeff