At 02:05 PM 8/30/00 -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
>Christian Soeller wrote:
>
> > What Karl was trying to get at is a suggestion to have one RFC on
> > indexing instead of three competing ones, for example. The current
> > approach seems to be make a new RFC always (regardless what is there
> > already). The other approach would be to take existing ones and rewrite
> > them heavily.
> >
> > Christian
>
>Yes. And for the record I alsothink the current approach of lets generate
>ten million RFCs and Uncle Larry knows best is nuts. There are already
>too many RFCs on this topic alone to grasp coherently.
Better a half-dozen reasonably coherent but overlapping RFCs than one big
one that never gets finished because nobody can agree, or that turns into a
bloated monstrosity that needs paring down to make reasonable, or that
ultimately goes in a direction that doesn't get implemented because it
doesn't mesh with the other things that are going on.
There's more than one way to design and present a set of ideas. No reason
there shouldn't be a number of RFCs for that set.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
