On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> I guess this will come off as smart, but if it is "controlled", I
> would have expected someone to write down why this section was
> written in the first place.
Good point. In fact, how to maintain a rational as part of the document
was discussed. At the time, it didn't seem critical to include the rational
in the standards document. (You can have a good debate about wether rational
is appropriate for the normative parts of a standards). Anyway, because we
all learn from what we do, it now seems that having the rational would be
helpful.
> It sounds like the early versions were hastily slapped together
> (this is not the only section that gives me this impression),
There were fewer people contributing back then, so some section probably were
hastily written.
> yet
> now you expect people to endure a painful process to make obviously
> needed amendments.
It doesn't have to be a painful process. I didn't mean to imply that it should
be, or even that is has to be a heavy process, only that some process must
be followed. Changing the document simply because write access is available
is not an appropriate process.
I think we've demonstrated that there is concensus that the change should be
made. I agree with that.
I do think that before removing or deprecating something we should make sure
we understand why it was added in the first place. If the answer is that it
was rushed and overlooked in the beginning, then that's fine. If there is some
other reason, then we need to be sure that we have considered it.
Once this is done, then we can change the wording in the spec to indicate that
is is deprecated.
Stuart
Stuart R. Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Metro Link Incorporated South Carolina Office
5807 North Andrews Way 129 Secret Cove Drive
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 Lexington, SC 29072
voice: 954.660.2500 voice: 803.951.3630
http://www.metrolink.com/ XFree86 Core Team
