Subject:
|
Re: Time for BFC overhaul?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Mar 2000 21:56:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1709 times
|
| |
|
|
Previously, Steve (me) wrote:
> > I feel that we are very close to closure. The open issues listed in the
> > BFC proposal have more to do with cleaning up the document than with
> > determining the BFC language and function. The only language-related
> > issue is whether to keep the CERTIFY tag or throw it out.
In lugnet.cad.dev, Rui Martins wrote:
> There we go again !
> I saw this coming !
I'm glad I didn't let you down. ;)
> Why the hack do you assume things are stable as long as you agree with
> the supposed current status of them ?
Because it's easier than rereading the entire thread of 83 messages
where we went through all this before. Seriously. But I will attempt
to go through that thread, recap the issues raised, and outline their
outcome. But that will be in a separate message from this one.
> Another technic you use (either unconsciously or NOT) is to just ignore
> other peoples mail, when they don't exactly fit on your ideias.
I don't ignore anything. I may read it, read differing statements, and
go with what I feel is the best choice. I do try to *not* cross the
opinion of the majority, regardless of my personal opinion.
> By this I mean:
> Sometime ago, last year, you also made an afirmation similar to the one
> in this mail, and I replyed to you and the group, with a mail saying
> some of the issues that were NOT closed or agreed by all.
Notice that this issue is still open. I try to be *very* careful, in my
messages and e-mail and actions, to not inadvertently imply that the
proposed BFC standard is anything more than a proposal.
> I don't remember you (or anyone else) replying to it.
>
> So time passes, people forget, but I have strong convictions, wich doesn't
> allow me to forget.
>
> Also your work on parts with the "finished" BFC spec are also a way to
> take your ideia ahead.
I did not and have not claimed that the BFC proposal is 'finished'. It
is my opinion that the proposal is close enough to a real deal that it
is appropriate to have a test bed, a real program on which to try what
we have worked out.
It is easier to see what works and what fails when there is an actual
example to test.
> You have done a similar thing with the actual spec you wrote.
I do consider my opinion as one 'vote' among equals. So if I see a
message from Mr. Y saying A, and another from Mr. X saying B, and I
think A is more valid B, I will go with A. Now, when Mr. Z steps up,
and agrees with B, we're in trouble.
> This is NOT saying that someone shouldn't write a spec, I mean that you
> shouldn't force the ideias that where not agreed in the spec.
Very true.
> I know that any one can say they don't agree with it, but once it's
> written it is a lot more dificult to change.
But if it's not written, it's much harder to keep focus and know where
we stand.
> You accept ideias from others as long as they don't clash with yours !
That's not true. I'm just thick-skulled. Sometimes things have to be
explained to me with very small words. With some repetition.
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Time for BFC overhaul?
|
| (...) Didn't answer the question, but moving on. (...) That's good to know. (...) Yes, but the proposed standard doesn't list the several options for a specific issue thta asn't been agreed iet. List the options, that's my point, because if you (...) (24 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Time for BFC overhaul?
|
| (...) And you like that don't you ? ;) If any one doesn't ! Don't read the rest of the mail ! (...) There we go again ! I saw this coming ! Why the hack do you assume things are stable as long as you agree with the supposed current status of them ? (...) (24 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
