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: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:01:08 +0200
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1182081668.751.55.camel@henriknordstrom.net>
lör 2007-06-16 klockan 10:27 +0200 skrev Julian Reschke:

> But then, this is a problem for the plain text format of RFCs in 
> general. Personally, I haven't looked at a text version when an HTML 
> version was around for years (well, except for LC).

For standards track the text version is the authoritative version.

> Yes, but it's sitting in a section called "Introduction", not 
> "Glossary".

Right. Should be in a "Definitions" secion of it's own, like used in
several other RFCs.

> There's a reason for the order the terms are in.

Sure, but I question how much of that reason really makes sense. Would
be better replaced with a true introduction referencing the definitions
I think.

> I don't say that having alphabetical ordering wouldn't be nice as well, 
> but I'm not convinced that it's the right thing to do it *there*. Thus I 
> would argue that unless there's strong consensus for a change, we 
> shouldn't fix what's not broken.

Not convinced. The subsection is called Teminology. Text explaining how
the terms in the terminology binds together is better explained in the
actual introduction of the operations of the protocol and the protocol
description itself than in the sorting of the terminology.

But I don't have a strong opinion either way. Just saying that having
them sorted would help anyone using the document as reference and not
leisure lecture, and also that sorting the terms would have negligible
impact on my ability to review the changes.

Regards
Henrik

Received on Sunday, 17 June 2007 12:01:18 GMT

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