Re: Splitting off core: where we stand

   From: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>

   ...

   Although adoption of DeltaV by implementors of document versioning (and
   other simple versioning systems) doesn't rely on the draft being split
   in two, I am sure that a large spec of daunting complexity is not a
   help.  In other words, splitting core out will encourage and speed
   review and adoption of DeltaV "core" by a wider range of implementors
   and vendors.

   This last point, to me, is the real key and the most important reason to
   split the documents.

Since we have reorganized the document, I have seen no
evidence of any reader being confused about what sections
they could skip, so a core implementor appears not to be
faced with daunting complexity any longer.

I believe the complexity metric that matters is: how understandable
is an option for the implementors that plan on implementing that
option?  By that criterion, the options appear to be *simpler*
than the core (so maybe we should standardize on the options,
and defer the core until later :-).

As you have stated above, adoption of DeltaV by implementors
of simple versioning systems doesn't rely on the draft being
split in two.  But if splitting the document results
in deferring or delaying the standardization of the versioning
options (as others have advocated),  the delay resulting
from the splitting does prevent adoption of DeltaV
by versioning systems that *require* some of those options
for interoperation, and it appears that the majority of
working group members that are planning on implementing
DeltaV do require at least one of the options.

Cheers,
Geoff

Received on Thursday, 8 February 2001 02:13:50 UTC