|
> You didn't limit your general admiration of standards to CRLF, so no, not only that. So your position, then, is that all standards include "needless complexity?" What argument are you actually trying to make here? > That's simply false, he isn't Yea.. that's why the word "like" is present, it implies a near association, not a direct accusation. > Almost all implementations of these protocols will accept a bare NL as an end-of-line mark, even if it is technically incorrect. So, right back to my original point, then, standards prevent people from having to debug dumb issues that could have been avoided. This advice is basically "go ahead, create dumb issues, see if I care." I may have flippantly labeled that as "protocol terrorism" but I don't think it's pure hyperbole either. |
That you're mistaken in your one-sided generalization of the benefits of standards.
> So your position, then, is that all standards include "needless complexity?"
No, that's just another extreme you've made up.
> Yea.. that's why the word "like" is present, it implies a near association, not a direct accusation.
Your mistake is before "like", you can't be "about actively breaking systems" when you explicitly say that no systems will be broken
> "see if I care."
That this is false is also easy to see - the author reverted a change after he realized it breaks something ancient, so clearly he does care.
> standards prevent people from having to debug dumb issues that could have been avoided.
Not to circle the conversaion back to my original response to your point: why do you think "Almost all implementations" break the standard and "accept a bare NL"? Could it be that such unintuitive limitations don't prevent anything, and people still have to debug "dumb issues" because common expectations are more powerful?