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 dan@sidhe.org have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunkThread Previous | Thread Next