- From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 10:10:27 -0500 (EST)
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
From: Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com The only arguments for splitting the document are editorial (i.e., readability) 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, grief, 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. Good points. Another reason to keep them together is that we have been so stringent in removing any "forward references" from the core section to any optional section (the only reference is to the "version history option"). If core and options are in one document, at least the table of contents provides a minimal roadmap for someone reading the core section and confused about the absence of some key concept (such as labels or an explicit CHECKOUT/CHECKIN method). With this in mind, I go from being "neutral" to being strongly in favor of keeping the options with the core in one document. Cheers, Geoff
Received on Monday, 5 February 2001 10:11:43 UTC