Received: from mail-pw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.160.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PEpHo-00016S-BI; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 13:22:55 -0700 Received: by pwi2 with SMTP id 2sf1072195pwi.16 for ; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 13:22:46 -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 :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:in-reply-to:user-agent :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-disposition; bh=u5Uyy8UfyzOMUjMZ37f7tSGlBsfc+oj5mZYqBy3Zsio=; b=rdH0a/t+0TWn+nn3VyxdEYpu50ORGf/uRxd2HZWb0ioTpl2YrPuuHzjemUPMShNt56 jZ4hzsHTRCMYCzHSXt4Ha9MadAB6HaZ2q5AFPSmMImwM/s/6z8jLLYHKLHP7y5lzw69d kga0V1oNBLV9glJ1Blh7wUaMm5kKWd6Wz9+pU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:in-reply-to:user-agent :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-disposition; b=zVcOkIMkMhwhZtIBFjYT31yKwzFZZ5UsosYLxzqM83gfqSDmY0Dx3d4cz6X4WHDQpZ v6z9gYlTdlQocgna0JRiHwW8XQCrlbavSVt6YtI++hT5ASwYJS3zXc1+icRnkn7xGCjd 5v2mE0jjX27sTaJlJOfiJ6BbLrWuE+fbw0HeE= Received: by 10.142.238.11 with SMTP id l11mr169338wfh.50.1289074961160; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 13:22:41 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.142.6.9 with SMTP id 9ls5957881wff.3.p; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 13:22:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.164.16 with SMTP id m16mr2510053wfe.58.1289074959951; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 13:22:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.164.16 with SMTP id m16mr2510052wfe.58.1289074959925; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 13:22:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org (digitalkingdom.org [173.13.139.234]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id p40si6013987wfc.6.2010.11.06.13.22.39; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 13:22:39 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org designates 173.13.139.234 as permitted sender) client-ip=173.13.139.234; Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PEpHb-00016D-EE for bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 13:22:39 -0700 Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 13:22:39 -0700 From: Robin Lee Powell To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [bpfk] dag-cll, next steps Message-ID: <20101106202239.GZ9301@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com References: <20101105232935.GV9301@digitalkingdom.org> <20101106031404.GX9301@digitalkingdom.org> <20101106033028.GB12188@mercury.ccil.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20101106033028.GB12188@mercury.ccil.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Original-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org designates 173.13.139.234 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rlpowell@digitalkingdom.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: Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Length: 1725 On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 11:30:28PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > > That doesn't hold up; what happens if we delete one? > > Then the link will break. 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? > But we don't have to gratuitously break > them. You seem to be failing to understand what I'm proposing. I'm proposing auto-generating *exactly the same numbers we have now*. 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. I'm just saying that a human shouldn't be in charge of updating all the internal references when that happens. What is it you think I'm proposing that will break links? -Robin -- http://singinst.org/ : Our last, best hope for a fantastic future. Lojban (http://www.lojban.org/): The language in which "this parrot is dead" is "ti poi spitaki cu morsi", but "this sentence is false" is "na nei". My personal page: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/rlp/ -- 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.