Re: Fixes for editorial issues

Thanks for the help, I've incorporated many of these changes, and the 
diff format was especially useful for the whitespace-after-hyphen 
problem as well as for the symbolic references.  Here's what I haven't 
entirely incorporated:

  - Bug 30, I didn't apply the XML line breaks exactly as you did but 
tried to retain the indentation as much as possible for readability.  
Still I think it achieves valid XML-ness now.

  - Bug 41, Nesting XML definition subsections, e.g. moving  "depth XML 
element" as a subsection of "activelock XML element" and similar 
sub-section moves:  This wasn't an error in RFC2518bis, it was an 
intentional editorial choice to flatten the subsection hierarchy.  It's 
just a list of definitions, and a flat list seems more readable.  Plus, 
with the nesting subsections, some section headers (like "propstat" 
definition section in your version) start to have four section numbers 
("Section 13.9.1.1.") and either get lost or confusing in the TOC.

  - Bug 168 I applied the symbolic references changes, but I may make 
further changes in the future.  Sometimes it's not very helpful to the 
reader just to have an RFC number and not a spec name or even acronym 
-- but we can have both.  And perhaps you can suggest how to fix this 
ugly one:

   The XML namespace extension [W3C.REC-xml-names-19990114] is also used
    in this specification in order to allow for new XML elements to be
    added without fear of colliding with other element names.

  - Bug 174 is not strictly editorial, it actually changes the meaning 
of a requirement.  Here's your suggested text:

    When the property value contains
    further XML elements, namespace declarations that are in scope for 
that part of
    the XML document apply within the property value as well, and MUST
    be preserved in server storage for retransmission later.

In the context of the whole sentence, your change would state that the 
namespace declarations... MUST be preserved in server storage.  
Previously the sentence only stated that the namespace must be 
preserved in server storage.  Perhaps we can find another phrasing 
entirely.

Lisa


On Nov 21, 2005, at 5:34 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Hi,
>
> the attachment fixes many editorial issues: 30, 41, 57, 63, 68, 88, 
> 89, 168, 174, 180, 182, 185, 187.
>
> Hopefully this is useful in reducing the number of open issues, and 
> concentrating on non-editorial ones.