RE: Issue 374: use of term "part" in attachment feature document from Henrik Frystyk Nielsen on 2002-09-16 (xml-dist-app@w3.org from September 2002)

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 08:18:07 -0700
To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D08E92473@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

I am fine either way. I am also ok with Hervé's suggestion of making it editorially stand out more as a note. 

Henrik

>Personally, I'd recommend no-action, since the glossary 
>section[1] already contains definition for "Primary SOAP message 
>part" and "Secondary part". This, IMO, is enough to disambiguate 
>the term "part".

Received on Monday, 16 September 2002 11:18:38 UTC