Hi Paul and all, > On Apr 27, 2023, at 5:44 AM, Paul Wouters via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> > wrote: > > Section 2: > > The terminology is listed alphabetically, but some items are referred > in items before they are explained. It might be better to re-order > them. But perhaps not - me as a newbie in this space didn't know any, > but perhaps people familiar with terms find this sorting method easier > to use when reading the document.
I also flagged sorting in my own review comments. The problem is it’s neither alphabetical, nor topical, but semi-alphabetical. My own feeling is that alphabetical is better, for two reasons — first, it’s very hard to get topical exactly right and ensure that every term is introduced before use. (It’s not even always achievable, sometimes there are cycles.) Second and IMO more important, topical is helpful when doing a first straight-through reading, but alphabetical is most useful when one encounters a term later in the document and wants to return to the glossary to look it up. $0.02, —John _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list nvo3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
