RE: Updated portTypeExtension proposal

Sanjiva, just to expand on what Gudge said:

> Yeah, we talked on the call about working on the names later in the
life
> of the spec so that we can come up with a consistent set when things
are
> more stable.

I suggested (and we seemed to have consensus on) that we postpone naming
issues until the spec solidifies a bit more, and then have a thorough
review of all the names at once.  This should help us avoid spending a
lot of time arguing about names of constructs that might change or
disappear later, and help us to craft a consistent naming strategy.

So, for now, the names are up to the editors.  Hope you find this an
efficient way to go forward.

Received on Monday, 14 October 2002 10:22:05 UTC