Re: [apps-discuss] Applications Directorate Review of draft-desruisseaux-caldav-sched-11

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Julian,

Please read my review where I suggest text that references tables.

Eliot

On 3/8/12 2:25 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-03-08 14:18, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3/8/12 1:35 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> On 2012-03-08 11:40, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>     This document inherits, and sometimes extends, DTD productions
>>>>> from
>>>>>     Section 14 of [RFC4918].
>>>>
>>>> I would reword- "This document inherits and extends DTD
>>>> productions..."
>>>>
>>>> If so, should this specification update RFC4918 in rfc-index.txt?
>>>
>>> This is similar to other specs building on WebDAV, and we haven't done
>>> that (saying "updates") before.
>>>
>>>> §2.1.1, pg 11, and similar text in §2.2.1, pg 13, §2,4,1, pg 14, and
>>>> similar:
>>>>
>>>>>     PROPFIND behavior:  This property SHOULD NOT be returned by a
>>>>>        PROPFIND allprop request (as defined in Section 14.2 of
>>>>>        [RFC4918]).
>>>>
>>>> Why SHOULD NOT and not MUST NOT?  How should the client interpret the
>>>> information, if returned?
>>>
>>> SHOULD NOT is right; returning it does no harm. Also, it's consistent
>>> with other WebDAV specs. Having SHOULD NOT in one place and MUST NOT
>>> somewhere else would be awkward.
>>
>> Great.  What's the client behavior if it sees it?
>
> Essentially, the client didn't ask for the property but the server has
> sent it anyway. The client can throw it away, or keep it for later use
> (the latter case would be an edge case, because if the client had been
> interested, it would have asked for the property right away).
>
>>>> Throughout:
>>>>
>>>> Tables should be numbered for reference.
>>>
>>> If this is supposed to be a general rule, I would object to it. It's a
>>> matter of style, and thus should be discussed in the RFC style manual,
>>> if it ever gets updated.
>>
>> No it's not.  It's for internal referencing.
>
> I just checked the spec and couldn't see any case where the tables
> being numbered would have made referencing them easier.
>
> IMHO, "the table below" is more helpful as "table NN" and then having
> the tables being numbered. Things would be different if the references
> were more complex, or in a more complex presentation where tables
> might be moved around (which we do not do in RFCs).
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
>