- From: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:52:43 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
In general, I don't see much of a problem with indicating that a spec like this "updates" a previous document even if the document doesn't change specific items in the previous document. Speaking personally, when I see "updates", I take it as "read both". The contrast is, obviously, with "supersedes" which implies one can/should read only the second document. Just my take on it, regards, Ted Hardie At 7:54 PM +0100 12/30/2003, Julian Reschke wrote: >Geoffrey M Clemm wrote: > >>I agree that some reference to RFC3253 would be useful (e.g. something >>like "this provides a detailed description of the binding model that >>is implicit in RFC3253"), but I wouldn't say that it "updates" RFC3253, >>since it doesn't change anything in RFC3253. > >Well, "updates" is the only type of link we *can* use (nothing else would create a forward reference in the RFC Index). > >Besides, I'd say that it in fact "updates" RFC3253, because it updates RFC2518's descriptions for MOVE, COPY, DELETE etc in presence of multiple bindings. Thus, it indeed updates both RFC2518 and RFC3253. > >Regards, Julian > > >-- ><green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 30 December 2003 14:52:57 UTC