- From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 02:12:49 -0500 (EST)
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
From: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com> ... Although adoption of DeltaV by implementors of document versioning (and other simple versioning systems) doesn't rely on the draft being split in two, I am sure that a large spec of daunting complexity is not a help. In other words, splitting core out will encourage and speed review and adoption of DeltaV "core" by a wider range of implementors and vendors. This last point, to me, is the real key and the most important reason to split the documents. Since we have reorganized the document, I have seen no evidence of any reader being confused about what sections they could skip, so a core implementor appears not to be faced with daunting complexity any longer. I believe the complexity metric that matters is: how understandable is an option for the implementors that plan on implementing that option? By that criterion, the options appear to be *simpler* than the core (so maybe we should standardize on the options, and defer the core until later :-). As you have stated above, adoption of DeltaV by implementors of simple versioning systems doesn't rely on the draft being split in two. But if splitting the document results in deferring or delaying the standardization of the versioning options (as others have advocated), the delay resulting from the splitting does prevent adoption of DeltaV by versioning systems that *require* some of those options for interoperation, and it appears that the majority of working group members that are planning on implementing DeltaV do require at least one of the options. Cheers, Geoff
Received on Thursday, 8 February 2001 02:13:50 UTC