On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:25:06 -0400
Charlie Summers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm sorry, I'm not as comfortable with the concept of "fuzzy
> standards" as you seem to be. Either it's right or it isn't; if it
> isn't, I'll either fix it or abandon it. Simply saying, "if the
> point of agreement turns out not to be exactly permissible under
> the appropriate specification, that's okay" may be fine for you,
> but to me it negates the entire idea of _having_ a "standard," and
> it _isn't_ "ok." It's the mark of a flaw.
The problem with this is that there are very few RFCs or other net
standards which stand up under that level of scrutiny. Heck, even
with the various ANSI/ISO standards, a space I inhabit, there's
still masses of wiggle room despite man years of effort being spent
on attempting to craft it out.
--
J C Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------(*) http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/
--=| A man is as sane as he is dangerous to his environment |=--
