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. --JeffReceived on Wednesday, 3 July 2002 22:16:49 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:39 UTC