RE: Issue 374: use of term "part" in attachment feature document

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


>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