On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:37:02PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 01:44:22AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:21:42AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 05:34:51PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > > duplicated, or a blanket grant to include anything in main. As best we > > > > know so far, there is no useful point between these (unmodifiable or > > > > unredistributable documents are not considered useful). > > > > > > I disagree. Standards documents, even if unmodifiable, are useful. > > > > A specification that cannot be updated is not 'useful', it's 'disaster > > waiting to happen'. Suddenly when you want to add ipv6 support, you > > find that you have to throw the specification away and write a new one > > from scratch. > > You wrote 'specification', I wrote 'standards documents'. I call things by their real names. A 'standards document' is a specification promoted by a self-proclaimed 'standards body'. The practical difference? Nothing but bullshit. I hereby declare myself to be a standards body and every specification ever written to be a standard. This is at least as legitimate as w3c, since they did exactly the same thing, and more legitimate than IETF, since they never did but rather just prevaricated into it (building up a long history of shoddy handling and politics along the way). It's just more documentation. Free software needs *free* documentation. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature