Re: [MODEL] Resolutions to nouns describing LFB class definitions?
Jamal Hadi Salim <[email protected]> Fri, 5 Jan 2007 11:06:14 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.forces |
|---|---|
| Organization | ZNYX Networks |
| Message-ID | <1168013174.5216.114.camel@jzny2> |
Thanks Tom. I know Joel has it under control but i've just put this discussion in the tracker (issue #103) so it is not forgotten when people get busyed out. cheers, jamal On Fri, 2007-05-01 at 08:57 +0100, tom.petch wrote: > Jamal > > There was general agreement that using the same terms as had technical meaning > in XML was likely to cause confusion but there was no consensus on what to > replace the ones in -model with. > > Tom Petch > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jamal Hadi Salim" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 5:40 PM > Subject: [MODEL] Resolutions to nouns describing LFB class definitions? > > > > Joel, > > > > There was a discussion with Tom a while back on the naming conventions > > of LFB attributes and their properties so we avoid conflicting with > > the XML definitions ... > > I cant find anything on the tracker - what was the resolution? As i > > begin scouring section 4 i am finding it unsettling as well. > > > > Can you open a tracker on the change or respond to this and i will. > > > > cheers, > > jamal