On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Bob Archer wrote:
> At 08:10 PM 16-10-00 +0100, Richard Robinson wrote:
> >On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Bob Archer wrote:
> >
> >> The more variants of abc programs accept, the less useful abc is as an
> >> exchange mechanism.
> >
> >Reductio ad absurdum: if abc programs accept no variants of abc they'll be
> >universal exchange mechanisms.
> >
> >I don't have to re-edit (primarily) abc2win-generated abc because abc2ps
> >_accepts_ the abc2win variant. I have to re-edit them because it
> >_doesn't_.
>
> My contention is essentially your Reductio ad absurdum, except I'm
> expressing it as a sliding scale rather than as an absolute. As I said in
> my previous post, there are two extremes - one where all software
> implements the standard, no more and no less and the other where all of the
> software ignores the standard completely. The first is impossible to
> achieve, and is undesirable because of the lack of innovation allowed. The
> second is undesirable because it makes abc unusable as an exchange mechanism.
>
> To come back to your example, I would state it as "You have to edit
> abc2win-generated abc because abc2win does not generate standard conforming
> abc".
Yes. I think we're both saying "six of one, half a dozen of the other",
really, and the old "be liberal in what you accept and strict in what you
output". And maybe that what's generated is more of a key to the situation
than what's accepted.
> Again, I think that speed of updating the standard is critical to finding
> the right balance point.
Yes.
--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
