issue 34: Should portTypes be extensible?

I would like to close issue 34 as redundant:

  <issue>
    <issue-num>34</issue-num>
    <title>Should portTypes be extensible?</title>
    <locus>Spec</locus>
    <requirement>n/a</requirement>
    <priority>Design</priority>
    <topic></topic>
    <status>Active</status>
    <originator><a href="mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com">Sanjiva
Weerawarana</a></originator>
    <responsible>Unassigned</responsible>
    <description>
    [<a
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2002Apr/0029.html">ema
il</a>]
    Some users have asked that portTypes be extensibile.
    We need to carefully consider whether that is a good thing or not.
    </description>
    <proposal>
    </proposal>
    <resolution>
    </resolution>
  </issue>

The following closed issue in the part1 doc makes the above redundant:

<issue id="issue-portType-extensibility" status="closed">
  <head>Should portTypes be extensible?</head>
  Some users have asked that portTypes be extensibile. We need to
  carefully consider whether that is a good thing or not.
  <source>Sanjiva Weerawarana</source>
  <resolution>Closed as this is covered by overall
extensibility.</resolution>
</issue>

Any objections?

Sanjiva.

Received on Thursday, 20 June 2002 07:15:36 UTC