Re: [Bug 190] New: HTTP examples using RFC2629 markup

Oops, wrote this up yesterday when I posted an interim version of the 
draft, but forgot to hit 'send'.
...
I ended up not using this diff because I got distracted making other 
changes before remembering this diff.   However, I did find it useful 
to refer to, to see exactly what you had in mind.

The removal of subsections was not a conversion error originally but an 
editorial choice, deeming that inlined short examples can sometimes be 
good for readability.  Nevertheless, I can go back to using subsections 
for every example, but in that case there are more examples (the 
example of using a precondition code in a 403 Forbidden was the first 
such one in 08) which are new, and which should also be sections on 
their own if that's our choice.

Also note I indented some of the examples less as I went along -- 
consistently going for indentation of 2 spaces from the normal edge of 
text, and 2 spaces for each XML structural indentation.

Lisa

On Nov 22, 2005, at 6:03 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>> I'm in favour of this change, and were you to supply me with a diff, 
>> it would happen all the sooner. Thanks !
>
> OK,
>
> the attached source (+ diff) fixes:
>
> - artwork as discussed (also making indentation consistent and fixing 
> XML errors)
> - makes the LOCK compatibility table a proper table (rfc2629 style)
>
> While doing this, I had also to re-add subsections for the examples 
> (this was lost in an earlier draft; I suspect that was an error due to 
> the conversion to XML source).

Received on Thursday, 24 November 2005 17:49:39 UTC