🚀 go-pugleaf

Doug, Norman. Chill out.

I can see problems on both sides of this argument. Norm is (for whatever
reason) having trouble making sense of parts of the standard. Doug is (for
whetever reason) having trouble seeing how Norm could be confused. The rest
of us see Norman asking what sound like silly questions, but not having access
to the latest version of the standard we can't say whether or not they're
really silly. Then Doug comes back and says "no, the standard is right". And
when he's posted relavent quotes he seems to be right. Unfortunately, he's
lately stopped doing that.

Doug: instead of flaming Norman, why not just post the relevant sections
and let the facts stand? We'd all gain from it. And maybe Norman has a
point... from my own experience with standards design, sometimes you need
to step back a ways to see holes in a document. After you've been too close
to it for too long, it becomes a lot more obvious than it really is.

I realise that after all this time any such holes should have come out in
public review, but can it \hurt/ to have another look?
-- 
`-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>.
 'U`  --------------  +1 713 274 5180.
"The basic notion underlying USENET is the flame."
	-- Chuq Von Rospach, chuq@Apple.COM