- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 16:00:26 -0800
- To: "Jim Whitehead" <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>, "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Agree with these statements, and particularly that indexing/appendixing is the way to deal with the problem. The nice thing about separating the doc into discrete "packages" is that it's easier to make sure each package is a consistent set of features by itself, or to know what other package is relied upon. Lisa > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jim Whitehead > Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 3:41 PM > To: Geoffrey M. Clemm; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > Subject: RE: Review of draft-ietf-deltav-versioning-10.4/5 > > > > We could restructure the document into one section per option package. > > What do others think? > > My concern is that this might lead to the document not being useful as a > reference. For example, if all of the header definitions are spread > throughout the document, it is hard to find the one place where all the > header definitions are located. But, I can see the attraction to having > functional groupings by option package. Perhaps some hybrid would work. > Alternatively, a good index (or appendix listing all of the > headers, and the > section that defines them) might fix the reference problem. > > - Jim
Received on Tuesday, 5 December 2000 19:00:39 UTC