Revised property binding extensions proposal

Umm, well.  Here's the *revised* revised property binding proposal, this
time printed in *visible* ink.  Sometimes one can take confidentiality
too far ....

Oh, and I suppose I should warn the timid that the formality level in
the document is dropping as well, to some degree.  We can fix that by
reading many stories by Ernest Bramah and applying the principles of
locution demonstrated therein.

Heyas,

Here's the property binding proposal, revised per comments.  This
removes the "open value" stuff, changes the values of some attributes
(from string or boolean to QName or enumeration), adds an issues
section.  Most importantly, it tries to pick up the idea of defining
property binding information externally to the WSDL, and supply syntax
both for the definitions, and for the references.  The reference
mechanism includes a means of combining external definitions, which is
deliberately kept simple (on the grounds that the per-service overrides
can supply needed complexity).  The referenced definitions now join in
the scoping rules for property bindings as well.

Feedback, of course, is most welcome.

An example usage is (still!) in progress, illustrating the mechanism by
using the alternative email binding proposals.  Added to the list of
useful items to produce is a similar example for the http binding.

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com