Subject: [Ltru] split section 3.1

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 09:14:15 -0700

To address the various comments on the length of Section 3.1, I have 
created an experimental version of draft-01 and posted it on my website.

I split the section into three sections: File Format, Record 
Definitions, and Field Requirements. That last is split up by field 
type. Some text rearrangement was necessary to make this work and a 
little bit of editing was done. The last section needs an introductory 
paragraph (yes, Martin, yes, I know :-) ) and a bit more tugging is 
necessary.

However... I think it important to get a consensus that such a massive 
edit is called for (just to split the darned thing up a bit). I 
*personally* feel that this is something that should be left alone: we 
didn't do it in the 4646 era, why now?

File are at:

    http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-01alpha.txt
    http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-01alpha.html
    http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-01alpha.xml

Addison

-- 
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 09:16:19 -0700

Oh... and (pre-)draft-01 with the ABNF change is posted too...

     http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-01.txt
     http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-01.html
     http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-01.xml

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:31:41 +0200

Addison Phillips wrote:
 
> Definitions, and Field Requirements.

Makes sense.

> That last is split up by field type.

I'm not sure about using <h5> 3.1.3.x, it's not very nice, and
you kept the default <h4> limit in the ToC, so it doesn't show
up in the ToC.
 
> I think it important to get a consensus that such a massive
> edit is called for (just to split the darned thing up a bit).

You could pick a less massive split (3.1.1 isn't strictly
necessary), keeping the old layout as is.

3.1   (Intro) up to "Gregorian Date" (more or less record-jar) 
3.1.1 Required Records (starting at "The first record" etc.)
3.1.2 Optional Records (starting at "Each record MAY")

That would be a minimal edit, but still splits 3.1 in three
logical parts.

> we didn't do it in the 4646 era, why now?

In the 4646 era we were busy to convince you that numbers are
better than bullets when talking about the details of 3.1 <g>

Frank

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:17:57 +0900

At 01:14 06/09/20, Addison Phillips wrote:
>To address the various comments on the length of Section 3.1, I have created an experimental version of draft-01 and posted it on my website.

[chair hat off] Thanks, great.

>I split the section into three sections: File Format, Record Definitions, and Field Requirements. That last is split up by field type. Some text rearrangement was necessary to make this work and a little bit of editing was done. The last section needs an introductory paragraph (yes, Martin, yes, I know :-) ) and a bit more tugging is necessary.

To avoid the problems with four levels that Frank mentioned,
one possibility is to flatten the current fields section
(3.1.3) into a third-level section for each Field type.

>However... I think it important to get a consensus that such a massive edit is called for (just to split the darned thing up a bit). I *personally* feel that this is something that should be left alone: we didn't do it in the 4646 era, why now?

We always gain new insights and get smarter, or so we hope.

Regards,    Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[email-masked]