graham(_dot_)travers(_at_)BT(_dot_)COM wrote:
Yes, I have already conceded that we need a "master copy"
The point is that, if there exists a non-master copy that's easier for some
people to read, they won't read the master. If the non-master copy doesn't
agree with the master (and many of them won't), then these people *will* make
mistakes, and create non-interoperable implementations. It won't even be their
fault; they're using the tools that were provided.
--
/================================================================\
|John Stracke | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own. |
|Chief Scientist |===============================================|
|eCal Corp. |All I ask is a chance to prove that money can't|
|francis(_at_)ecal(_dot_)com|make me happy. |
\================================================================/