; To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Documenting the FOM
>
>
>
> From: Geoff Howard
>
> > Reinhard Poetz wrote:
> > > From: Giacomo Pati
> > >
> > >
> > >>Is the idl syntax still the way to describe the FOM documentation?
>
From: Geoff Howard
> Reinhard Poetz wrote:
> > From: Giacomo Pati
> >
> >
> >>Is the idl syntax still the way to describe the FOM documentation?
> >
> >
> > AFAIK it is far from being up-to-date. Chris added the FOM
> description
> > to the Control Flow documentation. I think we can remove
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
From: Giacomo Pati
Is the idl syntax still the way to describe the FOM documentation?
AFAIK it is far from being up-to-date. Chris added the FOM description
to the Control Flow documentation.
I think we can remove the IDL docs.
WDOT?
I wouldn't object. At the very leas
From: Giacomo Pati
> Is the idl syntax still the way to describe the FOM documentation?
AFAIK it is far from being up-to-date. Chris added the FOM description
to the Control Flow documentation.
I think we can remove the IDL docs.
WDOT?
Reinhard
Is the idl syntax still the way to describe the FOM documentation?
--
Giacomo Pati
Otego AG, Switzerland - http://www.otego.com
Orixo, the XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
