Re: New AFTF draft.

Just a side note really; but <wsdl:part> may be on the way out 
anyway... so the confusion may only be past history.

Jean-Jacques.

PS. Henrik, did yøu mean pårt?  ;-)

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
>>I'm a little concerned that the term 'part' used in this spec
>>will be  confused with the term  'part' as used in WSDL. It 
>>isn't clear to me that a 'part' in WSDL would  equate to a 
>>'part'  as described in this spec.
>>
>>The term 'part' as used in this context equates to MIME or
>>DIME message  'part', which is certainly  one way to look at 
>>this, but IMO, not the only way to view it.
> 
> 
> You're right that there is no connection in any way to WSDL's term
> "part" and also not to any term that MIME uses. DIME actually doesn't
> use "part". From now on I will only use Danish terms ;)
> 
> I don't have a strong preference. A more hypertext related term would be
> "document" but that has downsides too. I can't think of any term that
> isn't already used in some manner that might be perceived as being
> related.