W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > September 2002

Re: New AFTF draft.

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 11:46:16 +0200
Message-ID: <3D7F10E8.4000205@crf.canon.fr>
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.


PS. Henrik, did yu mean prt?  ;-)

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