Subject: RE: What Meng said

From: "Jim Lyon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:37:33 -0700

Dave Crocker, in response to my explanation about the SUBMITTER
confusion, said: 
> This is a good example of the reason that specifications should
> not make promises or predictions of the future.  That's a social
> process, not an engineering process.

I tend to agree.  Should we remove the language about the future from
the SUBMITTER spec?

-- jimbo

Internet commerce will never really take off until you can buy something
online without getting spammed by the vendor.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:56:32 -0700

Jim,

JL> I tend to agree.  Should we remove the language about the future from
JL> the SUBMITTER spec?

 my very strong, personal preference is to have a specification make no
 statements about the future, and particularly not about plans.

 the one exception, of course, is to show technical possibilities.
 examples of how a spec is capable of being enhanced.  not will be, not
 planned to be, but what technical flexibilities are present.

 and of course it's always good to show examples of how the spec might
 be used NOW (or, rather, after it is published...)

 sorry for being so pedantic, but i want to be clear about what i do
 mean by the suggestion.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>