- From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 09:47:03 -0500
- To: webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
If "updates" is our only choice for getting in a forward reference, that's certainly better than nothing. So I'm fine with having the bind spec indicate that it updates both RFC2518 and RFC3253. Cheers, Geoff Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com> wrote on 12/30/2003 02:52:43 PM: > 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 > > > At 7:54 PM +0100 12/30/2003, Julian Reschke wrote: > >Geoffrey M Clemm wrote: > > > >>I agree that some reference to RFC3253 would be useful (e.g. something > >>like "this provides a detailed description of the binding model that > >>is implicit in RFC3253"), but I wouldn't say that it "updates" RFC3253, > >>since it doesn't change anything in RFC3253. > > > >Well, "updates" is the only type of link we *can* use (nothing else > would create a forward reference in the RFC Index). > > > >Besides, I'd say that it in fact "updates" RFC3253, because it > updates RFC2518's descriptions for MOVE, COPY, DELETE etc in > presence of multiple bindings. Thus, it indeed updates both RFC2518 > and RFC3253. > > > >Regards, Julian > > > > > >-- > ><green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 >
Received on Wednesday, 31 December 2003 09:47:08 UTC