On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Derek Atkins <derek(_at_)ihtfp(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill(_at_)hallambaker(_dot_)com> writes:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer
<calestyo(_at_)scientia(_dot_)net> wrote:
On Tue, 2015-04-28 at 11:58 -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Look, my concern here is purely that I don't want to have to redo the
code I write this week because someone proposes this as an addition
later on.
I guess we're just at the start of the next standard,... writing code
now and assuming (and/or demanding) things to be stable is probably a
bad idea.
My concern is that when a nincompoop decided to release code
implementing the <img> tag in HTML he gave the community less than 16
hours to review before he had made it a fait accompli. As a result the
<img> tag still does not handle displays with resolutions other than
75dpi consistently twenty years later.
Once code ships it is very hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
I think you'll get more than 16 hours to study things here. So let's
not be more melodramatic than usual, please.
My point was, I don't want to be the next nincompoop.
Indeed, you've had many more that that so far and still haven't provided
a use case for someone to actually need to type in a fingerprint such
that a checksum would be useful. All I've received is
"but.. but.. someone COULD come up with one" or this example of the HTML
img tag, neither of which is useful to anyone to decide to add
(apparently needless) complexity when we're trying to reduce complexity.
Yes, I conceded that already. I think it is pretty clear that if
anyone wants to resurrect Base32C they have to show a really good use
case that can't be addressed by an autocomplete/autocorrect service.
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp