- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 15:44:38 +0100 (MET)
- To: mogul@pa.dec.com (Jeffrey Mogul)
- Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, http-caching@pa.dec.com
Jeffrey Mogul: > >Koen writes: > I would applaud it of someone would, sometime in the next few > weeks, mail an edited version of the 1.1 draft caching sections > with just the holes plugged, completely ignoring > <http://ftp.digital.com/%7emogul/cachedraft.txt> and the > discussions about caching of POSTs in this subgroup. > >I would applaud that, too. (Even the part about POSTs; let's >postpone that and content-negotiation until we have a better idea >of the more basic issues.) > > I probably won't have the time to make such an edited version > myself, but I promise to help in flaming anyone who objects to such > an edited 1.1 version on the grounds that it does not start from > first principles, or does not include an explicit correctness > model. > >Flaming isn't going to get us anywhere. I used the word flaming for shock value, because I feel that we are already quite near to the point where we can no longer afford ourselves the luxury of approaching the caching issue from first principles, if we are to meet our goals within the time we have left. Seeing the reactions that the word `flaming' provoked, I think now that I probably should have used a another term to denote the expression of disagreement. If I offended anyone, I'm sorry, I did not mean to. [...] >In other words, for those of you who disagree with me: try to change >my mind by making convincing arguments, not by flaming at me. I never meant to imply that flaming at you would be a good way to express disagreement, and I hope that you do not interpret my comments on your draft as flames. >-Jeff Koen.
Received on Tuesday, 9 January 1996 15:02:30 UTC