Re: Please comment on new RIM format

[Yutaka Yoshida <Yutaka.Yoshida@eng.sun.com>]

Personally, I prefer Farrukh's original one since I see the
same down side - too deep section numberings and TOC is going to
be pretty messy, I guess. As long as all objects have the same
structure of method and attribute, I think it's reasonablly
clear and understandable.


Yutaka Yoshida
Sun Microsystems, XML Technology Center

 > Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 11:38:24 -0400
 > From: Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>
 > Subject: Re: Please comment on new RIM format
 > 
 > Dan,
 > 
 > That sounds like a good suggestion as it clearly and further delineates
 > attributes from methods. However, there is one down side that I can see.  It
 > would lead to common use of 4 level deep section headers and occasional use 
of
 > 5 level deep section headers (when dealing with enumeration values such as
 > objectType). That would be undesirable would it not?
 > 
 > What do people think? Which is a clearer read? Which is more understandable?
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > Dan Chang wrote:
 > 
 > > Here are my two cents. I think the format will be more balanced if we have:
 > >
 > >     7.1 Class RegistryObject
 > >         7.1.1 RegistryObject Attributes
 > >             7.1.1 Attribute accessControlPolicy
 > >             7.1.1.2 Attribute ...
 > >         7.1.2 RegistryObject Methods
 > >             7.1.2.1 Method getAssociatedObjects()
 > >             7.1.2.2 Method ...
 > >
 > > Regards,  Dan
 > >
 > > e-business Data Technology and Standard
 > > IBM Silicon Valley Laboratory
 > > Notes:     Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS
 > > Internet:  dtchang@us.ibm.com
 > > VM:          IBMUSM50(DTCHANG)
 > > Phone:    (408)-463-2319
 > >
 > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
 > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
 > > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
 > 
 > --
 > Regards,
 > Farrukh
 >