RE: updated draft to put F&P in more places

Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote on Friday, June 25, 2004 1:32 PM:

> I've updated the draft per the telecon decision yesterday to put
> F&P in a few more places. Please review.
> I note (with disgust) that we're severly discriminating against
> Interface Fault components and Binding Fault components by not 
> allowing them to contain F&P (properties). Poor suckers.

In for a little, in for the whole thing, eh?  I can't remember if we
approved putting F&P in these as well, but it looks like we have to.

> One comment about ordering of F&P and other elements within their 
> parent elements: we seem to be a bit inconsistent about what order
> these can appear w.r.t. their siblings. I'd appreciate if someone
> could check that careful and make a recommendation for a consistent
> approach.

I would recommend putting them consistently at the top of the element along
with the documentation element.  The reading flow would be: here is a
binding, here are some comments, here are the features, here are the
properties, here are the operations, etc...

Tom Jordahl

Received on Monday, 12 July 2004 11:50:39 UTC