| > What argument are you actually trying to make here? 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? |