On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 11:20:55 +0200, John Martin wrote:
>I think this list is complete. I would ask that the base terms are
>referenced, where possible, from existing documents - RFCs or otherwise -
>(e.g. the Oxford English Dictionary is also fine by me, where appropriate).
>Only if it can be shown that the usage differs dramatically from what is
>previously understood, should we consider re-defining a term.
That was the plan.
>Do we also need "replica" as a base term (either as opposed or in addition
>to replication)?
>
>The only point on which I disagree is that I don't think that "surrogate"
>is a base term. Unless we see a definition on which we are at least moving
>towards consensus, I would suggest we remove it (or declare it a synonym,
>of course).
Right, I wasn't too sure either. In terms of the requirements of base
terms being referenced elsewhere, it might make more sense for it to
be a 1st derivative (is it?).
> Cacheable is in your list of base terms twice - once in "[]" -
>though I believe it is a 1st derivative term.
Oops, it was only supposed to be in the "[]". Do others agree? I
wasn't sure whether it was a "base" or 1st derivative.
Ian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:27 MST