Suggestion for rearranging -BIDI

[Vint Cerf]

Mark, based on the discussions here in minneapolis, I think we would like to reduce the amount of restructuring now and go for content focus. I will leave it to editors to assess the utility of further format adjustments. Not disagreeing with your point but frankly focused on reporting out final docs as soon as possible. V

________________________________

From: idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no 
To: Harald Alvestrand 
Cc: idna-update at alvestrand.no 
Sent: Tue Nov 18 12:46:04 2008
Subject: Re: Suggestion for rearranging -BIDI 


Now I'm confused. 

I was in favor of reordering the rules after the intro. The other stuff can come afterwards (that's what I meant by second, meaning after first, which you used to mean "after intro" ;-).

That is, I'm in favor of "He suggests placing the actual rules (section 4) first (after intro),
   followed by the rationale section, the requirements section and the
   caveats/issues sections."

(My parenthetic indicate what I think would be optimal, which would be to put all IDNA rationale and background into the document called "Background, Explanation, and Rationale"...) 

Mark



On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:03, Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no> wrote:


	Mark Davis wrote:
	

		I agree; the actual requirements should come first. (The rest could either come second or even be moved to Rationale.)
		

	That's not what's being proposed; the requirements are section 3, the rules are section 4, and the proposal is to put section 4 first. Are you supporting the proposal, or suggesting a different one?
	


		Mark



		On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 06:07, Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no <mailto:harald at alvestrand.no>> wrote:
		
		   I have had a suggestion from one participant to reorder the
		   material in
		   -bidi.
		
		   He suggests placing the actual rules (section 4) first (after intro),
		   followed by the rationale section, the requirements section and the
		   caveats/issues sections.
		
		   The current layout (intro, rationale, requirements, rules, caveats)
		   roughly reflects the thought stream that led to the document. It
		   seemed
		   rational to me at the time, but may not seem rational to a reader who
		   comes at it out of the blue.
		
		   What do other readers think of this?
		
		                      Harald
		
		
		
		   _______________________________________________
		   Idna-update mailing list
		
		   Idna-update at alvestrand.no <mailto:Idna-update at alvestrand.no>

		   http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
		
		
		



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20081118/6ccb62df/attachment.htm