Addison Phillips wrote: > I split the section into three sections: File Format, Record > 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 _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.