Nathan Wiger, at 09:56 -0700 on Wed, 4 Oct 2000, wrote:
> This is *exactly* why I suggested that the RFC be renamed and try to
> work within the constraints of keeping POD. In doing so, it could add
> really useful input. Otherwise, it will likely be ignored just like it
> was retracted now. And I'd bet that the title as-is already causes many
> to skip over it as "not gonna happen", causing its points about POD to
> be missed completely.
Renaming the RFC would mean me having to present a whole different
argument; the original argument was to replace POD with XML-based
notation, period. I'm not going to try to try to take all the comments
generated over the past few days and try to munge them together to come
with a 'new' RFC.
I felt retracted RFC's were those which were superseded, or 'impossible';
not just those which are highly unpopular. The frozen state, I felt,
means I don't feel there was much more meaningful input to improve the
quality of the RFC. Of course, my interpretation of these values for the
Status: field is not necessarily the best one.
As Buddha noted, as I originally intended, I requested comments, got them,
summarized, and concluded.
--
Frank Tobin http://www.uiuc.edu/~ftobin/
