Re: support for non-ASCII in strings, was: signatures vs sf-date

--------
Julian Reschke writes:

> Well, it was not me who added the new encoding to the Problem field spec.

See other email.

> > I cannot see any way we "need to support strings [...]" on top of that,
> > and I am a big beliver in Gettys rules of design:
> >
> > 	1. Do not add new functionality unless an implementor cannot
> > 	   complete a real application without it.
>
> So why are we adding sf-date then? Why do we actually work on a revision
> at all?

Because sf-date can be a significant performance improvement.

> > 	2. It is as important to decide what a system is not as to
> > 	   decide what it is. Do not serve all the world's needs;
> > 	   rather, make the system extensible so that additional
> > 	   needs can be met in an upwardly compatible fashion.
>
> If that leads to multiple, non-interoperable solutions for the same
> problem: no.

See other email.

> > 	3. The only thing worse than generalizing from one example is
> >             generalizing from no examples at all.  (Phil Karlton)
>
> I don't get how that applies here.

I found it silly to site only two of the three rules.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.