From: Ken Murchison (ken@oceana.com)
Date: Wed Mar 05 2003 - 09:22:57 CST
"J.B. Moreno" wrote:
[...]
> >> -- but while there is no certainty, the available evidence
> >> indicates that alienates 15% of the users.
> >
> > RFC 1036 (the current standard) defers the matter to RFC 822,
> > which is quite clear that those 15% (or the authors of software
> > used by them) have alienated themselves.
>
> See, that's what I don't like -- the absolute contempt in the above
> statement: they haven't "alienated themselves", they found themselves being
> inadequatly served by the existing standard and had to go beyond it to get
> things done.
Bullshit. They _have_ alienated themselves. If they had a problem with
the standard not serving their needs, they should have ammended/improved
the standard first, not just make shit up and try to make everybody else
comply later (sounds like a big company in Redmond, WA).
> They had a problem, they solved it, their solution works for them.
Works for them and only them. Why are we trying to cater to a clear
minority (assuming that 15% is the correct number), that clearly
violated existing standards? I'm all for maintaining compatibility with
existing practice, but I won't lose any sleep if the "just send 8-bit"
camp gets left out in the cold. They made their bed, they are going to
have to sleep in it.
> It's the fault of the people writing the standards that they had to do so.
The standards were written for what was needed at the time. Perhaps
they were short-sighted, but that's not the point. If a part of the
community needed the standards extended, they should have worked through
a WG or similar. You can't just do what works in your little corner of
the sandbox without taking into account the rest of the playground.
-- Kenneth Murchison Oceana Matrix Ltd. Software Engineer 21 Princeton Place 716-662-8973 x26 Orchard Park, NY 14127 --PGP Public Key-- http://www.oceana.com/~ken/ksm.pgp