- From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:44:20 -0000
- To: "Booth, David \(HP Software - Boston\)" <dbooth@hp.com>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi David, > I think the diagrams are helpful! They are not quite what I > intended in > my E2[1] though, so my E2 comment may still be relevant. My > intent was > to suggest saying something (very brief) at the *beginning* of the > recipe, as a way to help the reader select the appropriate > recipe. For > example, in recipe 4 you might say something like: > [[ > http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/VM/http-examples/example4/classA > is 303-redirected to > > http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/VM/http-examples/example4-content > /2005-10-3 > 1.html#classA > or to > > http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/VM/http-examples/example4-content > /2005-10-3 > 1.rdf > depending on the content type requested. > ]] Ok, I'll have a think about that. > > I do have one minor suggestion regarding client/server diagramming > conventions. In client-server diagrams, I personally think > it is better > to standardize on having the client on the left and server on > the right. > The reason for this is that most interactions are intiated by the > client. Thus, having the client on the left yields more of a > left-to-right flow than if the server is always on the left. (If you > number the actions you will see what I mean.) Obviously, > this is a very > minor issue, and to a large extent it may simply reflect a matter of > personal taste, but I offer this rationale in case it resonates. Feel > free to ignore it. I'll put the clients on the left, best to be consistent with convention I agree. Cheers, Al.
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2006 11:44:42 UTC