On 2012-11-24, Patrick Shanahan <ptilopt...@gmail.com> wrote: > * Tony's unattended mail <tony.parker-9o8uv...@cool.fr.nf> [11-24-12 15:58]: >> Again, this is another straw man. What I am suggesting is not the >> format=flowed standard. It's a hypothetical hybrid. >> >> Saying that people will violate a standard of any kind isn't good >> enough because any standard can be abused. Nice try though! > > *any* standard "will" be abused!
My point exactly. Thus, condemning a standard on this basis means you must condemn all standards, which is effectively calls for even less quality of service. > Saying that it can be abused assures that it *will* be abused. This contradicts what you just claimed. If the standard already will be abused by the mere existence of a standard, then there's no point in what you're claiming here. BTW, it's nonsense to claim abuse will ensue as a result of saying abuse is possible. The contrary may be true, however. Claiming that something *cannot* be abused would be a challenge.. an open inventation for someone to prove otherwise.
