* Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-02 22:00]: > I've been saying the same thing for weeks. I suppose it's par > for the course to handwave about them being "strictly > advisory", supply circular definitions for the feature in the > first place, claim no one will be implementing the feature, > then claim that someone is, etc, etc.
Yes. I thought those defences were very silly as well. > You know, stuffing an idea because of who proposed it. No, not just because of who proposed it, but also because of how. You objection is not unreasonable, but you phrased it roughly as “this is useless crap that no consumer is going to want and only clueless publishers would insist on providing.” What is anyone supposed to draw from that? Nor did it help to interpret this on the level of vendor politics: implying that this extension came to be just because IBM doesn’t want to play ball wasn’t the most precise way to clarify its flaws. It wasn’t until David gave his criticism that I saw any serious problem. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
