Branko Čibej <brane@xbc.nu> writes:
> >Hmm, so file://localhost/foo/bar should do the work, too?
>
> Yes, and in fact Subversion allows that form.
>
> >I think an accurate statement in the handbook could avoid confusion.
>
> Why should our handbook explain RFCs? People can read RFCs themselves.
The handbook exists to help people understand. If lots of people are
not understanding, then it's not a question of whether they've been
"responsible" and done their homework -- it's a question of *helping
them understand*. :-)
Another way to think of it is: Subversion may be exposing many more
people to the "file:///" convention than were previously exposed to it
(especially considering that browsers compensate for missing slashes).
So if we're going to expand their experience like that, we need to
document the new territory too. Expecting them to read the RFC is no
good -- how would they know which one to read, or even to look in an
RFC?
But *we* are able to anticipate their need for information, so we
should supply that information. We can do it as an unobtrusive
reference to the rfc, or just explain the deal as a quick footnote, or
whatever works best. But we shouldn't just say "That's not our
bailiwick" and ignore the issue.
I've devoted more space to this response than might be expected,
because similar questions are going to come up, and I wanted to
articulate the general philosophy early. I'm not saying we should
document everything in the world -- just those things that Subversion
exposes people to for the first time. That includes (obviously)
Subversion itself, but it also may include other things that are not
strictly part of Subversion, but are associated with it.
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Jul 27 03:20:51 2002