From: Forrest J. Cavalier III (mibsoft@epix.net)
Date: Mon Jun 10 2002 - 06:53:26 CDT
Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes:
> But the whole point about Usenet is that everybody has to work to the
> same specification. There are no 'options' in Usenet. If some sites obey one
> set of specifications and other sites obey a different set, then the whole
> thing falls apart.
>
Your statement applies only to base protocols and standards.
But I do agree that if an extra feature is implemented, it
should follow the standard. But there are many IETF standards
which can be used as examples of interoperation which have
base protocols and extensions. NNTP works well without NNTPEXT,
MODE STREAM is an option. Even NEWNEWS is disabled at many sites.
I think this group did very well in creating a backwards
compatible standard.
"Full standards compliance" isn't a very big hammer in
Usenet these days. I predict there is much in this draft
that never sees widespread implementation. If it were
written as a base document, which outlined how extensions
work, and then extensions documents, I think parts would
be more easily accepted.
The modest proposal might not work for other reasons, but
"Usenet will fall apart" is not one of them. If you argue
that, then you must also accept that Usenet falls apart
when a handful of sites comply with the new standard,
while others still do not. Do you believe that to be true?
Forrest