Re: CAP-12 - interm version 'A'

[email protected] wrote:
> 
>
> Not its not and you've done it before on other drafts we've worked here 
> on so dont act as if the request is totally out of left field and new to 
> you.
> 
>  >                         I told you and Ned in San Francisco that
>  > I was going to oppose ANY AND ALL changes to CAP so that we can get 
> it out.
> 
> If you are simply opposing any and all proposals made to fix CAP in an 
> effort to get it shipped rather than actually considering them then 
> there is something very wrong here.  

Removal of something that has been in CAP for YEARS is not a typo.
You have no right to assert that I have not considered them.

> 
> If CAP 1.0 goes out as it, it will have plenty of known flaws or 
> shortcomings that will result in indeterminate behaviour in several 
> cases.

So you have pointed out one case and some typos since -11,
stored queries that you want removed. You did not site it as busted.
Your assertion is that it does not meet what you (and others) feel
was what ever the original needs were.

The typos are getting fixed and the word smithing as you called
it are being done because of thousands WG and private emails.
And I do not place those in the same category as issues that will
"result in indeterminate behavior".

If you have a list of bugs, compatibility issues - please post it.

Without such an issue list - your claims are just bits of noise.

If you have proposals - make them. Many have made proposals
that are in CAP. They have proposed solutions, text, and
ABNF. That is helpful. Simply declaring there are un-named
issues is not helpful.

-- 

  Doug Royer                     |   http://INET-Consulting.com
  -------------------------------|-----------------------------
  [email protected]                 | Office: (208)612-INET
  http://Royer.com/People/Doug   |    Fax: (866)594-8574
                                 |   Cell: (208)520-4044

                 We Do Standards - You Need Standards