How to group variants?
"Jon P. Knight" <J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk> Thu, 16 March 1995 20:35 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10738;
16 Mar 95 15:35 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10734; 16 Mar 95 15:35 EST
Received: from services.Bunyip.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14469; 16 Mar 95 15:35 EST
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id PAA16153 for iafa-out; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 15:32:48 -0500
Received: from mocha.bunyip.com (mocha.Bunyip.Com [184.108.40.206]) by services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA16146 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 15:32:46 -0500
Received: from agate.lut.ac.uk by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA07129 (mail destined for email@example.com) on Thu, 16 Mar 95 15:32:35 -0500
Received: from suna ([220.127.116.11]) by suna.lut.ac.uk (8.6.11/8.6.11) with SMTP id UAA02685 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 20:27:11 GMT
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 20:09:04 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Jon P. Knight" <J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk>
Subject: How to group variants?
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
A quick question to all you IAFA hackers out there - are there any rules for grouping variant fields in IAFA templates? I assume that variant fields with the same variant number after the ``-v'' are always supposed to be a part of the same logical group. In which case the numbering for variant clusters should be different for unrelated clusters, right? For example in the DOCUMENT template type as Author-(USER*) and Admin-(USER*) aren't really related but Language-v* and Format-v* are (probably), we'd have something like: Author-Name-v1: Joe Bloggs Author-Email-v1: email@example.com Author-Name-v2: Andy Capp Author-Email-v2: firstname.lastname@example.org Admin-Name-v3: Fred Jones Admin-Email-v3: F.Jones@here.edu Admin-Name-v4: Bertie Bassett Admin-Email-v4: email@example.com Language-v5: blah blah Format-v5: related to blah blah Language-v6: froop froop Format-v6: depends on froop froop Is this right? The clusters must be marked as variants (ie: have the -v<number> after the field name) otherwise one wouldn't know which email address went with which name. Are there any cases where variant clusters _are_ related to other clusters or normal variant fields and so should have the same numbering scheme? If so, how does one workout from the outline templates given in the I-Draft which ones these are? Cheers, Jon -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Jon Knight, Research Student in High Performance Networking and Distributed Systems in the Department of _Computer_Studies_ at Loughborough University. * It's not how big your share is, its how much you share that's important *
- How to group variants? Jon P. Knight