- From: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 12:12:35 +0000
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> 1) Is the current form of the specification too complex? > Yes/No/Maybe. Why? I'm not sure on what scale to measure the complexity, but overall I would say no -- it is a complex subject and the specification is short and precise. > 2) Does there remain sufficient discussion going on surrounding > the OPTIONS that the draft should be split into two documents, > CORE and OPTIONS, so that we can move CORE forward? > Yes/No/Maybe. Why? "Does there remain sufficient discussion going on" Hmm, can decide if this means 'because there is so much discussion going on' or 'because there is so little discussion going on' about optional versioning. The only arguments for splitting the document are editorial (i.e., readbility) and process (i.e., submit separately). Since the document has been restructured it is easy for a core developer to ignore the optional parts. I just don't buy Jim W's comments about problems with having to skip forwards to read the Sections 15-22, greif, if a developer cannot sort that out then I don't want to entrust my data to any server they are writing! I'd like to get the optional sections submitted so that people who have declared their intent on this list can make things happen. So, 'no', don't split the document. Tim
Received on Monday, 5 February 2001 07:49:35 UTC