W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Complexity and Core Considerations

From: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 12:12:35 +0000
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <802569EA.0043134B.00@d06mta07.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>

> 1) Is the current form of the specification too complex?
> Yes/No/Maybe. Why?

I'm not sure on what scale to measure the complexity, but overall I would
say no -- it is a complex subject and the specification is short and

> 2) Does there remain sufficient discussion going on surrounding
> the OPTIONS that the draft should be split into two documents,
> CORE and OPTIONS, so that we can move CORE forward?
> Yes/No/Maybe.  Why?

"Does there remain sufficient discussion going on"
Hmm, can decide if this means 'because there is so much discussion going
on' or 'because there is so little discussion going on' about optional

The only arguments for splitting the document are editorial (i.e.,
readbility) and process (i.e., submit separately).  Since the document has
been restructured it is easy for a core developer to ignore the optional
parts.  I just don't buy Jim W's comments about problems with having to
skip forwards to read the Sections 15-22, greif, if a developer cannot sort
that out then I don't want to entrust my data to any server they are
writing!  I'd like to get the optional sections submitted so that people
who have declared their intent on this list can make things happen.

So, 'no', don't split the document.

Received on Monday, 5 February 2001 07:49:35 UTC

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