Next message: Geoffrey M. Clemm: "Re: Review of 06"
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 12:20:32 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200008071620.MAA07854@tantalum.atria.com>
From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: Re: a few nits on the I-D
From: Fred Douglis <douglis@research.att.com>
After today's WG meeting, I thought I'd mention a small number of
things that caught my eye when reading draft-ietf-deltav-versioning-06.
Apologies if any have already been caught or addressed.
Better mentioned twice than not caught at all!
First, I was caught by the spelling of "descendent" -- I thought it
was descendant. Miriam-Webster claims the former is an alternative
spelling for the latter, but the latter is clearly preferred. Was
this a conscious decision?
My brief scan of reference materials supports Merriam-Webster, so I'll
make the change.
2.1, 2nd sentence: must -> MUST ?
This section is intended to be just English prose, rather than formal
semantics, so I was just using "must" in the standard English sense.
2.2: give example of SET-TARGET?
What did you have in mind here? I assume you don't mean a protocol
example (those show up in the method definitions).
2.3: hyphenate "client assigned"?
Done.
Why are all the x.y.z headings followed by text w/o spacing? Typo or
some odd IETF requirement? e.g., 3.1.1
No that's just what the Word "generic printer" decided to do here ...
I'd fix it by hand for the RFC, but don't usually bother with the
internet drafts.
3.2: define "dead properties" or cross ref?
That's defined in the terminology section of 2518. We just reference
the terminology sections of 2616(HTTP) and 2518 and normally do not
repeat definitions from them.
3.4: mention that current time is relative to the server's locale.
Done.
4.1: "has no affect" -> "has no effect" (twice)
Done.
I have a couple of other things to mention, and will do so in separate
messages.
Thanks for the review, Fred!
Cheers,
Geoff