Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove unused definitions #9

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

tschaub
Copy link
Member

@tschaub tschaub commented May 18, 2013

Trim definitions list and accompanying references to just what is used in the text.

@tschaub
Copy link
Member Author

tschaub commented May 18, 2013

HTTP, TLS, HTTPS, and URI are not referred to in the rest of the doc. Seems to me like they don't need to be in the definitions.

@sdrees it also looks like a few of the references from template.xml could be removed. And I imagine we don't need the corresponding bib files (2616, 2818, 3986) either.

Let me know if these need to be there for some other reason.

@tschaub
Copy link
Member Author

tschaub commented May 18, 2013

@sdrees, right, 5165 would go with #6. Would the others need to remain if we only referred to 5165?

The bib/README.txt needs updating as well.

@sthagen
Copy link
Member

sthagen commented May 18, 2013

My rule here is simple: Wherever we use "well-known" terms and associate semantics with them (implicit or explicit), we MUST provide a definition statement by pointing upstream to the more if not most normative( maybe better applicable) source of definition. Point is the "Wherever", so if we do not spot any of the terms in this list anymore, we remove the reference otherwise someone will surely point out unused references during the call for comments phases.

So yes if terms vanish for this draft definitively, we pull every plug and remove any place where we plugged-it in before.

I would simply prefer to let the content discussion converge fast and settle to a strategy, and then remove all unneeded references as fast and easy, as I inserted them triggered by the insertion of those terms. Ok?

@tschaub
Copy link
Member Author

tschaub commented May 18, 2013

Sounds good @sdrees. I'll just leave this branch and pull request around. Can always push more commits to it as terms disappear.

This just makes things consistent with 5744dbb.
sgillies added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 5, 2014
Consolidation of a few paragraphs, elimination of usused defs (see #9),
removal of discussion notes (see #10). Text width set to 72 chars to
roughly match the text output.

Added: specification that optional altitude is meters above the WGS 84
reference ellipsoid, something to be discussed and affirmed or
removed.
@sgillies
Copy link
Contributor

sgillies commented Jan 5, 2014

Obsolete. Definitions removed in my commit (above).

@sgillies sgillies closed this Jan 5, 2014
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants