- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:03:38 +0200
- To: Travis Snoozy <ai2097@users.sourceforge.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Travis Snoozy wrote: > ... > It's fairly trivial to verify: pick the original, copy the first > definition, go to the modified version, and search for those exact > contents. If the exact contents are present, move to the second > definition in the original; if they're not, reject it. Take a second > pass on the destination to verify that the alphabetical ordering is > correct. It's O(N), and a 45 minute editorial job at absolute tops; > 5-15 if you have any skill with a good text editor. The only trip-up > would be page breaks, and that's easy to take care of by first removing > the page breaks/headers/footers from both the source and destination > (working on copies, of course). > ... Sure. But every reviewer who is serious about checking for unintended changes from RFC2616 will need to do that (or just trust us). > ... I guess the terminology section has two distinct purposes; one being to introduce the terms for a first time reader (in which case the current ordering makes sense), the other one being a reference. I personally don't look up these terms very often, but may be I should Anyway: would an (automatically generated) alphabetical glossary in an appendix work for you? Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 15 June 2007 16:04:04 UTC