1016 2005-01-20 20:06:47 +0000 Point of clarity - Section 2.2.3, 6th paragraph 2005-07-18 18:44:02 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WS Choreography Last Call Comment: Confirmed Closed unspecified PC Linux CLOSED FIXED http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor-comments/2005Jan/0022.html P2 normal -- 1015 1 gritzinger gritzinger martin.chapman oldest_to_newest 2835 0 gritzinger 2005-01-20 20:06:47 +0000 3. Section 2.2.3, 6th paragraph. Point of clarity "Names within a name scope MUST be unique within a WS-CDL document." Is the phrase "within a name scope" irrelevant since the uniqueness scope is "within a WS-CDL document"? That is, should it be "Each definition type name MUST be unique within a WS-CDL document."? 2881 1 martin.chapman 2005-01-25 20:25:16 +0000 editorial see 1016 4172 2 martin.chapman 2005-02-14 20:54:53 +0000 From meeting on 25-jan-05: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2005Jan/att-0010/2005-01- 25_WS-Chor_Notes.txt Link to 1015. Editorial as well. 3897 3 gritzinger 2005-03-11 18:03:09 +0000 Names within a name scope MUST be unique within the WSDL document. 3061 4 gritzinger 2005-05-25 20:34:14 +0000 In 2.2.3 changed: Names within a name scope MUST be unique within a WS-CDL document to: Names within a name scope MUST be unique within the WS-CDL document 4583 5 martin.chapman 2005-07-14 15:22:22 +0000 Yin-Leng has been informed of the group's resolution to this issue [1]. changed to closed, and awaiting confirmation. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor- comments/2005Jul/0002.html 4806 6 martin.chapman 2005-07-18 18:44:02 +0000 Yin Leng has confirmed the resolution: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor-comments/2005Jul/0010.html