On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 09:45:48AM +0000, Tony's unattended mail wrote: > > So not only to you need to establish a new standard, but you need to > > update all the existing tools to support it. > > No you don't. Tools become deprecated. Accept it.
A format which does what you described has existed since 1996 and is used by no one. Your format has already failed. Accept it. > > As a practical matter, the benefit of whatever difference in format > > you're about to suggest is vastly outweighed by the monumental > > amount of work required to make the world support it (AND SEE > > BELOW). > > I disagree. Congratulations on joining the "myopic and selfish" club. A definition does not become a "standard" until it is widely accepted; that is inherent in the definition of "standard". No matter the merit of your proposal, its practical value is zero uless you can make others care. I've already explained why they have no reason to, so good luck with that. > You gave up. That will fail you every time. I didn't give up. I recognized that one who can accept only idealism is a fool, and arguing with a fool is folly; thus continuing to argue with you is of no value. That's always a win. My failure was in getting sucked back in. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
pgpRJ4nH8GXRW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
