W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: my action item on issue 52 (Sort 1.3 Terminology)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:03:38 +0200
Message-ID: <4672B85A.2080708@gmx.de>
To: Travis Snoozy <ai2097@users.sourceforge.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Travis Snoozy wrote:
> ...
> It's fairly trivial to verify: pick the original, copy the first
> definition, go to the modified version, and search for those exact
> contents. If the exact contents are present, move to the second
> definition in the original; if they're not, reject it. Take a second
> pass on the destination to verify that the alphabetical ordering is
> correct. It's O(N), and a 45 minute editorial job at absolute tops;
> 5-15 if you have any skill with a good text editor. The only trip-up
> would be page breaks, and that's easy to take care of by first removing
> the page breaks/headers/footers from both the source and destination
> (working on copies, of course).
> ...

Sure. But every reviewer who is serious about checking for unintended 
changes from RFC2616 will need to do that (or just trust us).

> ...

I guess the terminology section has two distinct purposes; one being to 
introduce the terms for a first time reader (in which case the current 
ordering makes sense), the other one being a reference. I personally 
don't look up these terms very often, but may be I should

Anyway: would an (automatically generated) alphabetical glossary in an 
appendix work for you?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 15 June 2007 16:04:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:10 GMT