Re: We can't use RSD

["Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Is it that we don't /need/ to use RSD or that using RSD is a bad idea?

I'm inclined to think the use of RSD is certainly worth making allowances for.
But need it be the only mechanism used?  I'm not sure, given the tone of it's
contributor and the concerns raised.  These may be bogus issues that can be
easily resolved if people take a step back and look at the larger possibilities.
No sense in embarking on parallel paths if there are ways to find parity between
the various parties.

I think that as an analysis of what standards exist and what it takes for
various tools to utilize them it'll become possible to may a more informed
decision about what is or isn't necessary.  Likewise it leaves open the door to
alternatives without insulting the people that favor them.

-Bill Kearney

----- Original Message -----
From: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Mark Pilgrim" <f8dy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <atom-syntax@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 3:54 PM
Subject: RE: We can't use RSD


>
> I'm sorry, this sounds as barmy as any conspiracy theory. There's nothing in
> Daniel Berlinger's posts to warrant such flaming, except perhaps the use of
> "yuck", which I must admit sets alarm bells ringing. However, I do agree
> with the conclusion, no RSD. I think the best approach is to write the
> introspection part of the spec based on the requirements, rather than
> compromise to what's already deployed. We don't need to use RSD.
>
> Cheers,
> Danny.