From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Jul 11 2002 - 05:09:27 CDT
In <49EsMKRwEBL9EwAa@romana.davros.org> "Clive D. W. Feather" <clive@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In message <GyzqEL.87y@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>, Charles Lindsey
><chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes
>>[Proposed new text]
>> Although both of these methods have seen use in the past, the
>> preponderance of current usage on Usenet has been for method (b)
>> and many moderators are ill-prepared to deal with method (a).
>> Therefore, method (a) SHOULD NOT be used until such time as the
>> majority of moderators are able to accept it.
>I know that technically SHOULD NOT covers it, but I think the wording
>should make it clearer that the reason for not using (a) is purely that
>moderators might not be prepared. Something like:
> Therefore, method (a) SHOULD NOT be used unless there is good
> reason to believe that the moderator in question is able to accept
> it (in the absence of information, it should be assumed that he
> can not).
But that supposes that injectors will know the preferences of "the
moderator in question". Some injectors may be prepared to go to that
trouble, but I doubt that most will.
This is one of those arguments which is going to be fought out in the
market place. If we are agreed that both methods are valid (and I hear no
contrary argument as yet), and it our hope is that encapsulation should
wind in the long term (whenever that is), then the most we can do is to
provide a strong initial handicap in favour of the non-encapsulators,
which is what my wording was trying to do.
First do we agree that is our aim? If so, then we can polish the wording
so as best to achieve it. If not, then we need to discuss further.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk 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