- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 11:46:16 +0200
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- CC: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org, Herve Ruellan <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org>
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.
Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2002 05:46:08 UTC