To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.cad.devOpen lugnet.cad.dev in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 CAD / Development / 4268
4267  |  4269
Subject: 
Re: Time for BFC overhaul?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.cad.dev
Date: 
Thu, 30 Mar 2000 21:56:04 GMT
Viewed: 
1769 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 (...) (25 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 ? (...) (25 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR