|
From: Sean A C. <se...@co...> - 2002-11-01 20:06:47
|
On Friday, Nov 1, 2002, at 11:01 US/Pacific, Nathan Dintenfass wrote: > Well, the idea was to push the machinery for dealing with > contentObject as > field into a specific field implementation rather than have it in > baseField -- the idea being that is a special case. Right, but how many 'collection' implementations will you have? Just one in general I suspect so the type="..." could be implicit and the whole field spec would be simpler. Just a thought. "SOAP is not so much a means of transmitting data but a mechanism for calling COM objects over the Web." -- not Microsoft (surprisingly!) |