W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1997

RE: RE-VERSION

From: John Seraphin <John.Seraphin@ratp.fr>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 10:49:51 +0200
Message-Id: <01BCA57B.21C94410@fafner.noisy.ratp>
To: 'HTTP Working Group' <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Gentlemen,
I'm sorry to interfere in that long and heated discussion which
seems to get less and less productive at each reply.

I'm just unable to refrain my restlessness when I learn
that beeing "unable to read the English language presented
quite clearly in three separate RFCs" describes people who are
"untrained savages, apparently reared by animals in a jungle".

Are you, even marginally, aware that one source of confusion
MIGHT indeed reside in the difficulties that some savages have to
understand all the subtleties of English ? I've been told that in very
remote places, people still happened to speak and read some kind
of other primitive languages, which might account for the difficulties
they have either to contribute positively to English discussions
or to catch the fineness of your literature.

I don't find it very courteous to insult savages on toga praetexta
that their English is not a fluent as yours, you SHOULD perhaps
open some discussions on how to provide translated versions of 
the RFCs to help those savages to achieve your indisputable wisdom.

Regards

---------------------------------------------------
John SÉRAPHIN
Régie Autonome des Transports Parisiens - RATP
Information and Telecommunications Department
mailto:jse@ratp.fr
---------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed hereby are strictly personal
and might not be those of my employers.
.

----------
De : 	Roy T. Fielding
Date :	dimanche 10 août 1997 07:23
A :	John Franks
Cc :	HTTP Working Group
Objet :	Re: RE-VERSION 

<snip>
So, what you are telling me is that we should stop all work on improving
HTTP because some implementers are untrained savages, apparently reared
by animals in a jungle, and unable to read the English language presented
quite clearly in three separate RFCs.  Personally, I think implementers
who don't think they already know more about the protocol than the
protocol's designers will have the sense to actually read what has been
written on the subject and implement accordingly.  If they do so, I can
guarantee they will interoperate with other compliant implementations.
If they don't, there will be no interoperability, and thus no reason to
have a standard or waste time discussing it in this WG.

 ...Roy T. Fielding
    Department of Information & Computer Science    (fielding@ics.uci.edu)
    University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-3425    fax:+1(714)824-1715
    http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/

</snip>
Received on Sunday, 10 August 1997 01:54:00 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:51 EDT