Re: my action item on issue 52 (Sort 1.3 Terminology)

Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
> See <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i52>.
> 
> There was an open action item for me to sort the terminology section, 
> and to post the outcome over here for discussion (I'll add my opinion in 
> a separate mail).
> ...

I personally think we should not do this change:

(1) Sorting paragraphs makes it very hard to verify the changes; in 
essence, a reviewer would either need to trust us, or re-do the 
shuffling to control whether it's correct (nothing lost, no change in 
the definitions).

(2) In the RFC2616 ordering, things that belong together (such as 
"client", "user agent", "server" ...) are close to each other.

(3) Contrary to RFC2616, the text version of new spec will contain an 
alphabetical index section anyway (unless it's removed upon publication :-).

Best regards, Julian

Received on Friday, 15 June 2007 12:37:40 UTC