[rfc-i] On backwards compatibility for v2

Dave Crocker dhc at dcrocker.net
Mon Feb 10 14:28:57 PST 2014


On 2/10/2014 2:24 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2014, at 5:15 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
>> At base, I think we're being quite cavalier about the actual costs
>> of incompatibility.
>
> I think you are being quite cavalier about the costs of
> compatibility, Dave.   My point is simply that keeping backward
> compatibility in the grammar does not ensure backward compatibility
> in the implementation.   So the upside to keeping backward
> compatibility is questionable, and should be weighed in comparison to
> the costs, and not considered as an isolated Good Thing.


You really don't see the basic flaw in your logic, from sentence 2 to 
sentence 3?  Really?

Still, the end of your paragraph would be ok, if the tone of the group 
weren't so clearly biased towards dismissing compatibility and, 
therefore, ensuring its absence.

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list