Subj : XML
To   : Scott Little
From : Bill Birrell
Date : Wed Jan 08 2003 03:23 am

> Maybe you and Jan can redirect those kinds of
> arguements to the *Cs...

   Why? In any case it is not an argument so much as an embargo, Scott - the
'Eye of the Needle' through which you are trying to drive a camel.

> they are only relevant to them,

   Untrue. Policy 4 affects every sysop in FidoNet. If you don't like it, get
it scrapped. Don't just bitch about it or pretend it doesn't exist.

> and only if/when they are to decide whether XML is to
> become the 'official' nodelist format.

> This is not the place to argue Policy and suchlike.

   This is the NET_DEV echo. If Net development is pointing in a forbidden
direction, surely this *IS* the place to say so.

> As with the rise of IP connectivity, the old-schoolers
> can bitch and moan all they like but those that want
> to progress will do so regardless, and as long as it
> doesn't negatively interfere with other nodes, nobody
> can do a damn thing about it.

   That's the whole point. Anything that impacts the cost of distribution of
the nodelist does interfere negatively with all other nodes. Doubling the size
and therefore the cost of distribution of the nodelist is a prime instance of
'annoying behaviour'. That is why there must be an alternative.

> How does that differ from the current list?

   Even you must be able to see that. Are you a ninny?

bb.

---
* Origin: Escan BBS (2:25/200)