>speculate on the reasons why 'heavy' standards are not widely used. It's an observed fact.
First I don't believe that as we have successfully deployed many "heavy" standards along with other companies.
Also there are many factors that can play in "heavy" standards, the amount of code is one of them
but not the most important factor. We see "heavy" as being very complex, and not consumable, and these 2 characteristic could fall into other's "Lightness".u
Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122
![Inactive hide details for David Boreham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>](gifucZE1BCEmg.gif){kind=small}
David Boreham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/15/2006 12:00 PM
|
|
I'm not sure that we need to speculate on the reasons why
'heavy' standards are not widely used. It's an observed fact.
The only reason I'd want to think about why this is would be
if I were planning to make a heavy standard that did not have
whatever the badness is that cases lack of adoption. Personally
I would not bother with that line of thinking: instead I'd go make
a 'light' standard...
And that I believe is roughly the goal of this present effort.
_______________________________________________
dix mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
_______________________________________________ dix mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
