Re: [abcusers] (no subject)

[Bryancreer]

(Probably the best subject line yet.)

John ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said -

>Why couldn't non-specificity simply be included as one of the project's
>requirements?
>
>Here's more what I have in mind...  Picture your ideal standardization
>committee/forum/whatever, and now simply imagine that same thing being a
>sort of "para-project" catalyzed by a software project.
>
>So what do we need the software project for, you may ask?  We don't
>necessarily need it...  But in the real world, standards seldom
>materialize on their own.  They are almost always attached to a product,
>or at least a prototype.
>
>For one thing, this provides a sanity check against any ambiguity -- if a
>machine can't implement it, it's too vague.  For another, having a
>software project/product waiting in the wings would provide additional and
>specific incentive to get the &*@^%$ standard updated, already.
>
>I know it sounds like I'm advocating for a software project, but I'm not.  

Yes it does because you are still talking about a software project in the singular.  abc is already a multiplicity of software projects which should all be able to catalyze the "para-project" on an equal footing.

>But this also means that I don't want to close down a potential avenue
>toward it without a compelling reason.

I'm not asking for anything to be closed down (except the existing standards committee).  I just want the standard/protocol/specification or whatever we call it to be kept separate from any one particular software project.

I'm not exactly clear what Laura Conrad meant when she wrote:

>The discussion convinced everybody after a couple of
>months that there was no point in putting work into a standard in the
>present development environment.  

but the problems would seem to arise from conflicts between different software developments.  They can only be unified at the documentation level.

Bryan Creer