From bpfk-list+bncCIyTjrtpEJab2OYEGgRDo_Im@googlegroups.com Sat Nov 06 19:23:33 2010 Received: from mail-pv0-f189.google.com ([74.125.83.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PEuuo-00018E-40; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 19:23:33 -0700 Received: by pvh1 with SMTP id 1sf1176395pvh.16 for ; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 19:23:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:date:from:to:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:in-reply-to:user-agent:sender :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-disposition; bh=OE50A+y6YgqugcA7ATNCxETC9W73xtySgUOC9JJgi/4=; b=1nFNj7abI06l8tOmyBPZq3PP1avMqjNIXfuhK5PBVew3cj2sn3ddnw2ZdoeplFaUo6 FNVbulvLyyXdPFTNpV5VKOeX+/LGDNYOqgbyqTe9pT/ymXhP4f/Q63HB1Y3MV7VHbvAm B7tuvtC+jyKkQBshSpoRo4L3Zwgc89hIzoz54= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:in-reply-to:user-agent:sender:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-disposition; b=TuR78hUNv19JAKFD9MW/CT/OklL/pUnMv+6Et8Mm/dPvDbtUMgLWe6qst31Y3biKrQ 5zPJ6ml/1XeX+hOMWujWNxF+Tyv8M2JCsF40MXlhZscm798DSL6VrwcYGsKp5FeuqCAS Sc+/GE51nCr9CCeSc8zKhXfYWT9few/Q6B4KA= Received: by 10.142.65.9 with SMTP id n9mr177445wfa.49.1289096598398; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 19:23:18 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.142.2.41 with SMTP id 41ls6282583wfb.0.p; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 19:23:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.177.21 with SMTP id z21mr2707012wfe.55.1289096597738; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 19:23:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.177.21 with SMTP id z21mr2707011wfe.55.1289096597714; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 19:23:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from earth.ccil.org (earth.ccil.org [192.190.237.11]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id y8si6677587wfj.1.2010.11.06.19.23.17; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 19:23:17 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of cowan@ccil.org designates 192.190.237.11 as permitted sender) client-ip=192.190.237.11; Received: from cowan by earth.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PEuua-0002V7-ED for bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 22:23:16 -0400 Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 22:23:16 -0400 From: John Cowan To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [bpfk] dag-cll, next steps Message-ID: <20101107022316.GA3435@mercury.ccil.org> References: <20101105232935.GV9301@digitalkingdom.org> <20101106031404.GX9301@digitalkingdom.org> <20101106033028.GB12188@mercury.ccil.org> <20101106202239.GZ9301@digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20101106202239.GZ9301@digitalkingdom.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: cowan@ccil.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of cowan@ccil.org designates 192.190.237.11 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=cowan@ccil.org Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > And so will all the ones after it, no, since we'll renumber them? > Or are you seriously suggesting that we *never* update any of the > examples, that if we delete 5.1.3 we leave 5.1.2 and 5.1.4 with the > same numbers they had before, even we end up with a section with > 5.1.2, 5.1.2-2, 5.1.5, and 5.1.8 ? If that's what you're suggesting, > wouldn't *named* examples be infinitely better? Quite seriously, and yes, names would have been better, but in effect the numbers are names. When they tear down the house next to yours, they don't renumber all the adjacent houses on the rest of the street. > You seem to be failing to understand what I'm proposing. I'm > proposing auto-generating *exactly the same numbers we have now*. No, I grasp that, I'm simply against it. > If we add or delete an example in the middle, yes, the numbering > will break, but as you've just admitted, that's true right now. At > least, I sincerely hope that's what you've just admitted. Nope. > I'm just saying that a human shouldn't be in charge of updating all > the internal references when that happens. I agree. But if you leave them manual and don't renumber, then that isn't a problem, is it. -- We call nothing profound cowan@ccil.org that is not wittily expressed. John Cowan --Northrop Frye (improved) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.