From: Dave Barr (barr@visi.com)
Date: Wed Oct 16 2002 - 13:48:00 CDT
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:29:54 -0700 (PDT)
John Stanley <stanley@peak.org> wrote:
>
> David Barr (barr@visi.com):
>
> >What is in the draft is fair game to be debated.
>
> I'm glad you changed your mind.
>
> The "approved header" is in this draft. The content of the approved header
> is "fair game". And yet I could not discuss this because it was "new".
Non sequitor. The discussion was regarding extending the approved header beyond what was specified in the draft.
> The
> functions of a moderator are in this draft, and yet discussing this
> function was "new" and must stop.
Yes. It seemed pretty obvious to all that the discussion was spiraling out in to left field, way beyond what is implied and specified in the draft.
> That is EXACTLY what I'm saying. Thank you for agreeing. How long do you
> plan on watching this merry-go-round on character encoding go on before
> you realize that there is no consensus and "it's out"?
Not for much longer. I'd like to see this poll on UTF8 formally put out so we can hopefully end this and move on to all the other issues that depend on this.
I've allowed it because it's about a fundamental issue that speaks to the core of what is in the draft (do we and how do we extend Usenet beyond 7 bits.. and the implications on 2822 compatibility). The approved header and functions of a moderator are nowhere near as important (and conclusion of the latter is completely dependant upon resolution of the encoding debate).
--Dave