W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > October to December 2000

RE: Review of draft-ietf-deltav-versioning-10.4/5

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 16:00:26 -0800
To: "Jim Whitehead" <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>, "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Agree with these statements, and particularly that indexing/appendixing is
the way to deal with the problem.  The nice thing about separating the doc
into discrete "packages" is that it's easier to make sure each package is a
consistent set of features by itself, or to know what other package is
relied upon.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jim Whitehead
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 3:41 PM
> To: Geoffrey M. Clemm; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Review of draft-ietf-deltav-versioning-10.4/5
> > We could restructure the document into one section per option package.
> > What do others think?
> My concern is that this might lead to the document not being useful as a
> reference.  For example, if all of the header definitions are spread
> throughout the document, it is hard to find the one place where all the
> header definitions are located. But, I can see the attraction to having
> functional groupings by option package. Perhaps some hybrid would work.
> Alternatively, a good index (or appendix listing all of the
> headers, and the
> section that defines them) might fix the reference problem.
> - Jim
Received on Tuesday, 5 December 2000 19:00:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:46 UTC