RE: [dss] RE: Emailing: EPMService-schema-verify.xsd

[Trevor Perrin <trevp@trevp.net>]

At 03:10 PM 11/9/2003 -0500, Edward Shallow wrote:

>I like Inputs. However I think "AdditionalInputs" is even more accurate
>given the assertion that ideally you don't have to specify anything and
>still get served ... Hence anything above and beyond implicit is really
>"Additional".

"AdditionalInputs" is the most accurate, I agree.  It's also kinda verbose 
- in the specification text, we refer to these things a lot, and it might 
be a pain to keep saying "additional inputs".  "Inputs"....  is a little 
vague, if we speak about inputs it'll be unclear if we also mean the input 
documents.

I still like "Options" - short, and it makes a good pair with "Outputs" 
(look and sound alike).  On one hand, it's not as accurate when these 
things aren't optional, but on the other, it conveys the idea that these 
things *should* be optional, and exerts a gentle encouragement in that 
direction.

Yes, this is an incredibly fussy thing to be discussing.

Anyways, my 2nd choice is Parameters.

I've tagged this as an Issue in the latest draft, so we can see what other 
people say, and hopefully decide next meeting.


Trevor