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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:11:52 UTC