RE: Structure navigation within a document, re: Development Cost

My comments interspersed - look for CMN: and CO:

On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Charles Oppermann wrote:

  It's easy to come up with rationales after the fact and find all sorts of
  neat uses of the proposed feature.  However, the solution did not grow out
  of a real need.
CMN:
Nonsense. Perhaps that need was not clearly enough stated that you could
understand it at first, but I think it has been thoroughly discussed.
Unless you are suggesting that the individuals who make such proposals
just think of ideas at random, and that the group discussion on them is
based on a complete lack of understanding. It's a possibililty I am
prepared to entertain in theroy, but I find it hard to reconcile with the
evidence and would need considerable guidance.

CO:  
  Each item I mentioned can be dissected individually, but when combined show
  the relative lack of importance/benefit of the proposed feature.  Also,
  there is no discussion of possible alternative solutions and how it might
  compare with the existing checkpoint.
CMN: 
The point is that a number of claims, each individually spurious, when
taken as a group amount to nothing. If you would like to contribute to a
discussion of alternatives we welcome your input.

Charles McCathieNevile

Received on Wednesday, 10 March 1999 19:41:42 UTC