- From: John Stracke <francis@appoint.net>
- Date: 1999年2月16日 18:30:26 +0000
- To: "'WebDAV'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <36C9B941.76E91074@appoint.net>
Yaron Goland wrote: > Sections 1 & 3 do not belong in an RFC because they are not normative. > However, imagine how much more useful the WebDAV spec would be if we could > release an "unofficial" version with all the sections 1 & 3? Can't we release the 1&3s as an Informational RFC? > My recommendation to WebDAV authors, especially the versioning group, is > that they seriously consider using this same structure for their drafts. > More than that, if they will be using Word, they should seriously consider > putting together the environment I propose. Personally, I'd recommend using non-proprietary tools, so that, if they have to hand the document off to somebody else, they're not limited to people who run Windows or Mac and have bought Word. A good preprocessor would do (or even a not-so-good one--I use cpp for my personal website). -- /==============================================================\ |John Stracke | My opinions are my own |S/MIME & HTML OK | |francis@appoint.net|==========================================| |Chief Scientist |NT's lack of reliability is only surpassed| |Appoint.Net, Inc. | by its lack of scalability. -- John Kirch| \==============================================================/ CUBElink Internet Services.
Received on Tuesday, 16 February 1999 13:29:21 UTC