[rfc-i] Containment considered harmful

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Sat May 26 22:28:35 PDT 2012

On May 26, 2012, at 8:27 PM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:

> On 5/26/12 10:44 AM, "Joe Touch" <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
>> Can you all PLEASE stop telling me "might". Show me a NEED.
> I think there are several of us that believe that it's roughly similar cost
> to the toolchain to have more information rather than less, and as such, we
> may as well have more information.  There are several ways that I want to
> use that information that you don't care about - fine.  But if it costs the
> same, why not?

I've shown that it isn't the same cost.

>> This is NOT a contest about "how much information can we preserve". Every new
>> type of information that you add to the list of preserved info LIMITS the
>> solution space here.
> Yup.  That's intentional.

OK, so you're clearly indicating then why containment is a bad idea. There is no reason to limit the solution space solely to preserve some potential future need.

>> “Perfection is achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but
>> when there is nothing left to take away” – Antoine de Saint-Exupery
> "Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler" - Albert Einstein
> (misquoted)

I'd really like you to explain how preserving all this structure for some undefined future need is "as simple as possible".


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list