Re: (REPOST) user-specific package configuration information

[Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 08:20:28PM -0700, sandy pond wrote:
> There are a few possibilities for new applications (linking, 
> shared directory), but in general the proposal provides that:
> 
> (1) backward compatibility is maintained.
> (2) developer can continue to use the status quo.
> 
> This is guaranteed because the proposed scheme is optional.

Optional schemes, particularly ones which aren't currently in any kind
of common use, aren't particularly useful in standards documents.

You have a pet idea of how dot files should be better organized.
Fine.  Write a paper and submit it to some conference.  People can pay
attention to it, or not.  If people start actually using it, then we
can put it into the standard as an optional or required scheme,
depending on how widely your scheme is used.

						- Ted