On 5/18/2004 5:18 PM, Eric A. Hall sent forth electrons to convey:
Reusing TXT is bad engineering.
Such a statement, unsupported by facts, has no place here; if you are
going to refuse to argue your point or against the points made, why are
you here?
If using TXT is bad engineering, you've done a dismal job proving it.
We're supposed to take your word for it? While you blatantly ignore our
arguments and questions? (Which I even restated in my last post!)
Makes me wonder if you'd object to the Apple ]['s amazing hacked support
for 16 colors even though it was designed for 6 as unaesthetic
engineering.
Or are you saying you hold the reins and will prevent a MARID proposal
that does not use a new RR from getting RFC status, even though you
can't provide a technical argument worth the bits its printed on to
support your argument? Presumably you can write well, since you wrote
an O'Reilly book. But on this topic, your arguments hold no water.
It's fine for design and experimentation
but when the time comes this group will need to <not use TXT>.
Sounds like a threat, not an argument. Much like Andy's "Thou shalt not
use TXT" decree that I objected to.
Followups to alt.religion.somethingorother.