From: Bill Davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com)
Date: Mon Jul 02 2001 - 16:59:24 CDT
Brad Templeton <brad@templetons.com> contradicted himself thusly:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 02:29:42PM +0000, Charles Lindsey wrote:
> > > b) message/partial SHOULD NOT be used on postings below two
> > > megabytes, and its use should be discouraged on larger postings
> >
> > I don't think it is a good idea to mention explicit sizes. People will use
> > message/partial if they believe it will improve propagation of their
> > articles (their beliefs may or may not be correct).
>
> Isn't that why a standard is there, so people don't have to guess?
>
> If you make the order that the software has to technically support
> a certain minimum size (while it SHOULD support arbitrary size)
> then people don't have to guess. They can post, knowing that
> compliant software will handle their post, and for those who don't
> get it, it's the fault of their software, not the poster's actions.
Didn't you read what you wrote? You don't say word one about what
softwere would, could, SHOULD, might handle, you say it SHOULD NOT be
used in a way which is going to be used for many years.
To specify a minimum capability for article size is arguably within the
scope of the standard. To include a senseless statement about minimum
size is not. People will break up posts as they will, not the way you
want. And when the need goes away, so will the practice.
64k size, 100k, 256k, and 512k breakups went away when the need for them
passed, why do you think the standard should pontificate on 1MB? It
won't go away until the current limits go away, and it will go the way
of all the other sizes when it isn't needed, without any verbiage in the
standard.
Write what you claimed to have written, make the need go away. The lower
limit has never been needed for any other encoding, and it's not needed
now.
-- -bill davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me