Eric Allman wrote:
Dave seems to be forgetting that early implementations of drafts are
a good way to get practical feedback into the process --- it's more
than a gedanken experiment. Mike seems to forget that these /are/
drafts, and drafts do (and should) change.
Hi, Eric. Welcome back.
Perhaps you missed my noting:
Basically, I believe you are confusing the benefit of getting data from
prototypes, versus the more extensive damage done by changing an
installed global service.
which seems to acknowledge explicitly what you are saying I was forgetting. It
was certainly meant to.
Simply extending the logic at work against change, here, serves to mandate
absolutely no changes, as soon as anyone has written a single line of code.
Since I suspect no one really means that, what is missing is the offering for
how this particular change has an impact that really is as disastrous as is
Lest it be forgotten, the motivating text for this sub-thread was:
Michael Thomas wrote:
Each time you change it, implementations break in a
Now perhaps it registers differently with you, but I'd class that language as
dire. And it is about a working group draft that has just recently undergone
massive change. (Just how recent that change occurred is yet another item that
seems to be getting forgotten.)
Perhaps we can ratchet down the hyperbole and return to the reasoned
consideration we have recently been enjoying in the working group?
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to