On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Tim Showalter wrote: > I tried to spend a few minutes thinking about this over the past couple days. > Mark's implementation is certainly more powerful, although I still find it > really odd. I can't get a good counter argument going.
Yes, it is odd, but it seems to be more useful. > Either a.b.c.d or a.c.d is better than a.bc.d, and given Pine is the dominant > user of this, perhaps a.c.d is the better answer. I don't think I like it, > actually, but it's better to have one interpretation in the wild than two (or > three, which is where I think we currently are). I don't know if I was unclear, but Pine does not use this particular feature of references. Pine always uses references with the trailing hierarchy delimiter. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
