W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > September 2002

RE: Issue 374: use of term "part" in attachment feature document

From: David C. Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 15:11:55 -0700
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF8CDE2F3A.E6A841B3-ON88256C36.0079BE7A@boulder.ibm.com>


The WG decided at least week's telcon to make note of the distinction and
we will follow that directive. Henrik and Herve, pls implement Herve's
suggestion in the Ed copy.


............................................
David C. Fallside, IBM
Ext Ph: 530.477.7169
Int  Ph: 544.9665
fallside@us.ibm.com



|---------+---------------------------->
|         |           "Henrik Frystyk  |
|         |           Nielsen"         |
|         |           <henrikn@microsof|
|         |           t.com>           |
|         |           Sent by:         |
|         |           xml-dist-app-requ|
|         |           est@w3.org       |
|         |                            |
|         |                            |
|         |           09/16/2002 08:18 |
|         |           AM               |
|         |                            |
|---------+---------------------------->
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                                                                           |
  |       To:       "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>                                                               |
  |       cc:       <xml-dist-app@w3.org>                                                                                     |
  |       Subject:  RE: Issue 374: use of term "part" in attachment feature document                                          |
  |                                                                                                                           |
  |                                                                                                                           |
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|





I am fine either way. I am also ok with Hervé's suggestion of making it
editorially stand out more as a note.

Henrik

>Personally, I'd recommend no-action, since the glossary
>section[1] already contains definition for "Primary SOAP message
>part" and "Secondary part". This, IMO, is enough to disambiguate
>the term "part".
Received on Monday, 16 September 2002 18:25:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:11 GMT