RE: Discrepancy in Section 3.1 - Part 1

Ah.  Sorry.  Yes, that would be fine.

I think that one's editorial, too, then.

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
[email protected]



-----Original Message-----
From: Ramkumar Menon [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Fri 18-May-07 5:21 PM
To: Amy Lewis
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Discrepancy in Section 3.1 - Part 1
 
Amie,
Apologies, but I did not mean to propose dropping the string "W3C" from the
section title :-) - that was an accident .
I only meant the change in the title to change "Description" to "Definition"
- period.
Sorry for the confusion.

What do you think ?


Ram


On 5/18/07, Amelia A Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Please *don't*.
>
> Regardless of how generic the name claims it to be, it's still a W3C
> specification, and there's nothing wrong with calling it the *W3C* XML
> Schema Disaster.  I mean, Description.  Language.  Thing.  Whatever.
>
> Amy!
> On 2007-05-17 17:38:04 -0400 "Ramkumar Menon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Gurus,
> >
> > The title of section 3.1 in Part 1 says "Using W3C XML Schema
> > Description
> > Language".
> >
> > The acronym "XSD" expands to XML Schema Definition Language.
> >
> > I propose the change to the section title as "Using XML Schema
> > Definition
> > Language".
> >
> > regards,
> > Ram
> >
> >
>
> --
> Amelia A. Lewis
> Senior Architect
> TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
> [email protected]
>
>


-- 
Shift to the left, shift to the right!
Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte!

-Ramkumar Menon
A typical Macroprocessor