- From: David C. Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 15:11:55 -0700
- To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
The WG decided at least week's telcon to make note of the distinction and we will follow that directive. Henrik and Herve, pls implement Herve's suggestion in the Ed copy. ............................................ David C. Fallside, IBM Ext Ph: 530.477.7169 Int Ph: 544.9665 fallside@us.ibm.com |---------+----------------------------> | | "Henrik Frystyk | | | Nielsen" | | | <henrikn@microsof| | | t.com> | | | Sent by: | | | xml-dist-app-requ| | | est@w3.org | | | | | | | | | 09/16/2002 08:18 | | | AM | | | | |---------+----------------------------> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr> | | cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org> | | Subject: 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. 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 18:25:28 UTC