<monitor mode="decloak"> I'm not sure that postponing any naming considerations is necessarily such a good idea. I can certainly see postponing any renaming discussion of *existing* WSDL elements/attributes, but this, as I understand it, is still at the proposal stage. IMO, element and attribute names should be as expressive and intuitive as possible, so as to avoid any potential for misunderstanding. Introducing an attribute with a non-intuitive name like 'bases' at this stage does not (IMO) help in conveying the attribute's purpose and intent. Why not choose a well understood and widely used term such as has been suggested by Sanjiva? (e.g. portType/@extends) I saw no pushback to his proposal other than the "we'll address naming issues later" comments. </monitor> Christopher Ferris Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com phone: +1 508 234 3624 Jonathan Marsh wrote on 10/14/2002 10:21:34 AM: > > 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 15:56:29 UTC