NEW: blanket statements vs. the law of unintended consequences, also Re: #1028 USEFOR 3.1.2 Date: Resolved, I think.

[Bruce Lilly <blilly@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu June 30 2005 09:57, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> Bruce, I have not heard anyone but you arguing that *all* OBS-syntax should 
> be accepted.

Harald, I don't believe that I have have said so, especially not with
that emphasis.  I have said that I believe that we should adhere to
2822 as closely as possible, making specific exceptions where there is
some justification.

[oh, my!]
> raise an issue that  
> specifically suggests alternate text for 2.1, where we say that OBS-syntax 
> is a "MAY" accept, not a "MUST" accept?

So MUST means MAY except where (e.g. obs-phrase) MAY means MUST. Unless
of course MUST means MAY again.

While the 2.1 text says "MAY" it doesn't specifically say that it
overrides 2822, so it's not 100% clear.  It's unclear what the order
of precedence is in interpreting 2822 vs. 2.1 vs. the presumably
agreed-upon obs-phrase text, etc.

Blanket statements flout the law of unintended consequences and lead to
convoluted rules such as the above.  I propose eliminating the blanket
statement in section 2.1 (i.e. the second sentence of the first paragraph),
with the understanding that that does not preclude adding limited-scope
relaxation of specific parts of 2822 obs-syntax parsing requirements
where appropriate and where justifiable.

> Acting as if we had changed 2.1 when we have not is ... not useful.

OK.  Among other not-useful things:
o presenting text in isolation which refers to section 2.2 but not 2.1
  where 2.1 may be applicable

Plenty of blame to go around.