- From: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
- Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 15:21:22 -0500 (CDT)
- To: jg@w3.org
- Cc: Dave Kristol <dmk@allegra.att.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
On Tue, 4 Jun 1996 jg@w3.org wrote: > Please limit suggestions at this date to substantive changes; I'm going to be > pretty draconian on nits in the next draft. I do not want to take of introducing > new problems in the draft when fixing existing ones. So rewrites, particularly > that add sentences that may cause interactions that did not exist before, > are likely to be frowned on by the editor this time around. > > If we feel more wordsmithing is needed, we can do it between proposed > standard and draft standard. > > As to the particular suggestion, it fails one test at least: > > A famous individual once wrote (don't have my Bartlett's quotations > handy, so I won't have it right) something like: > > 'My apologies for such a long letter; I was too busy to write a short one.' > > Shorter is usually (not always) better. Fewer words to misinterpret. > - Jim Gettys > One part of my suggestion was a little more than a nit. Perhaps it's a NIT, but I won't say FATAL. ;) Anyway, in the second paragraph if "greater than" is not changed to "greater than or equal to" then a range where last-byte-pos equals the file length is undefined. Ok, ok, so maybe it is a nit. John Franks Dept of Math. Northwestern University john@math.nwu.edu
Received on Tuesday, 4 June 1996 13:23:58 UTC