Re: header syntax.

On 24 Nov 2012, at 09:20, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote:

> 1. I think it unlikely that 'all' implementations action all this
> header syntax in exactly the same way. We have no evidence of that.

Why do you continue to ignore the facts? Every implementation has implemented it.
Karl provided a link to Babelmark2, which I already re-posted. There are no differences.

> Please make your choice using the poll Max and we'll see what the group want.

Well ok, I casted the vote #5, but I still think it's ill-conceived to even try to decide about this topic in this way.
I think that breaking existing documents "just because" is a very bad idea, even if 2 more people would vote in that direction and there would be a whopping mayority of 4:3 people.

TL;DR: 
On 23 Nov 2012, at 19:36, Pablo Olmos de Aguilera C. <pablo@glatelier.org> wrote:
> I don't get why you insist in turning this more and more complicated.

---

To sum up the discussion: Dave and other are against including trailing hashed in the new spec.

They have presented these arguments agains it:
- It adds to much complexity
- If we follow the original spec, we would be doing nothing
- Easier for the user

The first argument is subjective, so we have asked to back it up with facts. None were given. ("It is complex" is not an answer to "why is it complex?")
Regarding the second argument it has been pointed out that it is true for corner cases and this isn't one -- and there have been no facts provided why it should be one. Furthermore, you can look it at it the other way around: What good is a 'core' spec that is not complete, thus guaranteed to be not followed by implementations or users? If the 'core' spec is missing critical features, doesn't that add to the overall complexity since everyone would have to implement/use core+ intermediate-profile-X?
Third: It is debatable what is easier for the user. Some want to learn just 1 rule, some want to have choice. However going through old docs, deleting trailing hashes, is what nobody wants.

The arguments pro-inclusion:
- It DOES NOT BREAK existing documents. Fact: trailing hashed are in use, in the real world.
- This is a not a case of ambiguity in the Gruber spec nor where implementations differ. Fact: Babelmark2 shows it. [1]
- It does not seem complex to write down the rule (much less than dealing with paragraphs imho), as I have shown. Why would it be too complex?
- Inclusion is 100% in line with the Deliverables as currently in the wiki, since it is "in common use across implementations" (well, ALL of them).

So please, tell me: Why not include it? 

 Max


P.S. Again, link to Babelmark showing that every implementation ignores trailing hashes:
        [1]: http://johnmacfarlane.net/babelmark2/?text=%23+Why+the+fuck+would+you+print+a+line+of+%23s+in+a+title%3F+%23%23%23%23%23%23%23%23%23%23%23%23%23%23%23%23%23%23%23%23%23%23%23%23%23%23%23%23

Received on Saturday, 24 November 2012 13:57:19 UTC