On Tue, 20 Apr 2010, Robin Whittle wrote:
Yes - and none of them have explained their objections either.
Perhaps, rather than the rest of the world owing you an explanation,
it was instead incumbent on you to explain why these terms are
useful. You're never going to persuade people by trying to browbeat
them into using your terms. If people don't seem to be interested in
your terms, get over it and move on. Deluging people with email does
not help.
From a previous email of mine:
I think I'll stick with with "map-and-encap" and "rewriting".
I happen find those terms are more descriptive and to have much wider
"currency". Perhaps others too, judging by the chairs draft.
Try applying Postel's principle in your personal communications.
I'm not interested in a prolonged discussion on this. :)
regards,
--
Paul Jakma p...@jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
Fundamentally, there may be no basis for anything.
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
