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

fre 2007-06-15 klockan 14:37 +0200 skrev Julian Reschke:

> (1) Sorting paragraphs makes it very hard to verify the changes; in 
> essence, a reviewer would either need to trust us, or re-do the 
> shuffling to control whether it's correct (nothing lost, no change in 
> the definitions).

Not a concern to me. It's trivial to detect in a review, and almost as
trivial to resort (but not even needed for a full review).

> (2) In the RFC2616 ordering, things that belong together (such as 
> "client", "user agent", "server" ...) are close to each other.

Sure, but also makes a specific definition quite hard to find without
searching for it.

It's a definition of terms, not a description of operations.

> (3) Contrary to RFC2616, the text version of new spec will contain an 
> alphabetical index section anyway (unless it's removed upon publication :-).

Which works well for an HTML version, but not so well in the authorative
ascii version..

In other words I am for having the terminology definitions sorted
alphabetically. If there is need for relation between the terms outside
what is said elsewhere in the text then I propose to expand the terms as
needed. Some references to the main text may be in place.

Regards
Henrik