On 6 Jul 2006, at 00:19, Duncan Cragg wrote:
Some people may have gone around this discussion, but there seems
to be no listening going on.
My question is simple: what is the document for? It contains
nearly no information. And the information it does contain could
easily be moved to the feed document.
The last mention of a Service Document was around draft 03. It's
now called the Introspection Document. I was forced to do APP
archaeology to figure out what your comment was going on about (I'm
new here, too!).
Even if you are spot-on correct in your observation, you give the
impression that you think the current contributors are all idiots,
and that they owe you something. This has the effect that your
comments will be dismissed as the babblings of a vagrant that
stumbles into a cocktail party.
In fact, I also wondered what the purpose of the Introspection
Document was when I first read an APP draft. I am taking the time
to read the archives and the draft in detail to understand this.
Any pointers the list can offer me in my quest will be gratefully
received.
The problem with this list is that there have been a lot of flame
wars going on, so that people like me have avoided participating in
the arguments, waiting in the sidelines to see what was going to come
out. Now that this introspection document has settled to something
clear, the point remains that there is not much information therein,
and that it seems clearly that one could do without. Had there not
been so much flaming previously this problem may have revealed itself
earlier.
Now of course perhaps someone is going to give me a good argument as
to why we really do need such a document, a mime type to go with it,
etc... and I'll be happy.
Sorry if I seemed a little too heavy in my initial statement of the
argument. I'll try to do better.
I hope I have time before it all goes to Final Call if I end up
still thinking there are any improvements to be argued for... =0/
I'd like to see the arguments too. If it goes to final call without a
good argument, I'll have to oppose it.
Henry
Duncan Cragg
We went round and round arguing this a while back and
I have no interest in repeating it again, please
check the archives for the whole discussion.
Thanks,
-joe
