Re: [sca-bindings] ISSUE 3 - portType referred to inconsistentlythroughout specification

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

That would be simpler.
The reason not to do that would be: cross-posting.
I suspect there would be a lot of issues that would be of interest to 
multiple SCA TCs and having a disambiguator may help here.

But I don't have a strong opinion.

-Anish
--

Michael Rowley wrote:
> Eric,
> 
> I hate to be a pill, but we are going to have a ton of email that will
> all start with the same boilerplate.
> 
> Could we go with:
> 
> RE: [sca-bindings] ISSUE 3 - portType referred to...
> 
> as the format rather than:
> 
> RE: [sca-bindings] ISSUE: BINDINGS-3 - portType referred to...
> 
> Saying "bindings" twice at the beginning of the subject just pushes the
> actual subject title way off to the right.
> 
> Michael
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Johnson [mailto:eric@tibco.com] 
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 6:00 PM
> To: sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] ISSUE: BINDINGS-3 - portType referred to
> inconsistently throughout specification
> 
> Logged as: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-3
> 
> Eric Johnson wrote:
>> Title: portType referred to inconsistently throughout the
> specification
>> Target: Web Services Binding, draft 20070926
>>
>> Description:  The WSDL 1.1 notion of "portType" is referred to
>> inconsistently throughout the document.  Sometimes it is referred to
> as
>> "PortType".
>>
>> Proposal: Change "PortType" to "portType" except where being used as
>> part of a section heading that naturally capitalizes words.
>> References to "PortType" found throughout section 2.
>>
>>
>>
>>