W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1997

Re: req-sum-00

From: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 97 15:51:40 MDT
Message-Id: <9710202251.AA29167@acetes.pa.dec.com>
To: http working group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4584
Patrick McManus writes:

    the spreadsheet format is great, but will it include the glossary
    of footnote resolutions? as that is likely to be perpetually
    evolving as well.

My remarks in the Internet-Draft about using a spreadsheet were
not intended to describe a form directly available to "users".
What I wrote was:
   The use of a spreadsheet would allow separate editing of the
   requirements summary, followed by semi-automatic insertion into the
   master copy of the HTTP/1.1 specification.
I.e., it would be a convenience for the editorial process of
the HTTP/1.1 specification.

I also wrote
   It might also allow
   semi-automatic extraction of subset requirements application to
   specific kinds of implementations.
which I suppose could be useful to people who are trying to
generate application-specific subsets of the requirements summary.

However, since this requirements summary is not meant to be
used independently of the formal specification (and anyone who
tries to use it independently will get no sympathy from me!),
I don't think it makes sense to try to make it entirely self-contained.

I.e., don't expect to see the glossary of footnotes included in any
spreadsheet representation.

Received on Monday, 20 October 1997 16:00:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:21 UTC