From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Mar 09 2000 - 05:16:20 CST
In <200003081706.MAA06411@darkstar.prodigy.com> davidsen@prodigy.com (Bill Davidsen) writes:
>Still not needed, although it could be done for fixed length records.
>When the *first* generation of an article subject to replacement
>arrives, the API can point to an alternate lookup which gracefully
>handles changes.
Sure implementation would be much easier if you could assume tha, but you
can't.
>- I think it's reasonable to require that an article be marked as
>replacable so that the server can handle it specially. Not MUST be CAN
>to be clear.
But I think that is essentially UNreasonable. It is only when you realise
that you did something stupid that you can decide that your original
article needs to be Replaced. You have hindsight, but not foresight.
Agreed, with FAQs and the like it might be possible (but I am not so sure
even there). But FAQs are only one of the applications of the proposed new
feature.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506 Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5