- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:18:04 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>, Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote:
>
> Ted Hardie wrote:
>
>> In general, I don't see much of a problem with indicating that a spec
>> like this "updates" a previous document even if the document doesn't
>> change specific items in the previous document. Speaking personally,
>> when I see "updates", I take it as "read both". The contrast is,
>> obviously,
>> with "supersedes" which implies one can/should read only the second
>> document.
>> Just my take on it,
>> regards,
>> Ted Hardie
>
>
> And "read both" is what I'd really like to express. Geoff?
However, looking at
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-07.txt>,
section 2.11:
Updates
Specifies an earlier document whose contents are modified or
augmented by the new document. The new document cannot be
used alone, it can only be used in conjunction with the
earlier document.
So maybe we need to leave it as is...
Regards,
Julian
--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 30 December 2003 16:18:40 UTC