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

Re: Next step on web phishing draft(draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt)

From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:11:03 -0400
Message-ID: <46E6F657.4040204@cs.utk.edu>
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
CC: Debbie Garside <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>, ietf@ietf.org, discuss@apps.ietf.org, 'Iljitsch van Beijnum' <iljitsch@muada.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, bmanning@ISI.EDU, saag@mit.edu, ietf-http-auth@osafoundation.org


>> There has been a discussion recently on LTRU as to whether a Terms and
>> Definitions section should be introduced within RFCs - much like those
>> within ISO Standards.
>>     
>
> And my response to this suggestion is the same as it was for the "IANA
> considerations" or "Internationalization considerations" section suggestions:
> By all means have a "terms and definitions" section or whatever in the document
> if there's a need for one, but don't make having one mandatory in all
> documents.
>
> We already have more than enough useless (from a technical content
> perspective) boilerplate in our documents. 
+1

Actually I don't have so much of a problem with having such sections in
drafts at review time, but I hate to see them clutter up published
RFCs.    There are a lot of times when these sections aren't applicable,
and having them in the final document just interferes with readability. 

I also think that a Terms and Definitions section might encourage
document authors to make up new terms when they're not necessary, which
would also interfere with readability.  (geeks love to create new language.)
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2007 20:11:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:16 GMT