I'll repeat what I said awhile ago: Type is too general to use
at this level. I agree with saying Resource instead of Object
(although I think "Resource" is one of the Web's squishiest and
more loathsome words), so why not ResourceType?
Rule of thumb: qualify terms like Type so no one gets confused
about what they apply to.
Regards,
Terry Allen Fujitsu Software Corp. [log in to unmask]
"In going on with these experiments, how many pretty systems do we build,
which we soon find outselves obliged to destroy?" - Benjamin Franklin
A Davenport Group Sponsor: http://www.ora.com/davenport/index.html
