> >now, first of all. This "policy", if I'm free to proclaim it in that way, is >not >invented by people maintaining Kannel.
Maybe not, but implemented by them according to their own preferences. >I don't see any equation of 'lowest common denominator' and 'abstraction'. We >never put this equation to a rule here in the group. Stipe, please look back and read your own rejections of suggestions. That should really make you think about the validity of your sentence above. >There is only a generic >policy which implies to the fraze "don't make it the messy way". Not true. >Show us *why* the things you say (concerning factual issues, hence >coding implementations) is more "worth", then not to add it. If you convince >us >by factual issues, we're always willing to "change" our position (like it >tends >to happen in real-time politics). If you never stand back and consider principle matters, but always delve into details, you get nowhere. >Ok, I agree in some limited sence to your last paragraph. But I refraze, it's >up >to *you* to draw the benefits of your opinion, in such a way that you >generically convince by practical issues, not by generical politics frazes. OK. Here is one practical issue, which deliberately has been turned down: implementation of complete official protocol standards. - J�rgen Thomsen
