Re: the discussion so far
John.Cowan
(17 Jul 2005 07:29 UTC)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
Re: the discussion so far
John.Cowan
(20 Jul 2005 05:07 UTC)
|
||
Re: the discussion so far
bear
(20 Jul 2005 17:27 UTC)
|
||
Re: the discussion so far
John.Cowan
(20 Jul 2005 19:28 UTC)
|
||
Re: the discussion so far Thomas Bushnell BSG (20 Jul 2005 19:30 UTC)
|
||
Re: the discussion so far
John.Cowan
(20 Jul 2005 19:41 UTC)
|
||
Re: the discussion so far
bear
(20 Jul 2005 23:56 UTC)
|
||
Re: the discussion so far
Alex Shinn
(21 Jul 2005 01:36 UTC)
|
||
Re: the discussion so far
John.Cowan
(21 Jul 2005 01:47 UTC)
|
||
Re: the discussion so far
bear
(21 Jul 2005 08:52 UTC)
|
bear <xxxxxx@sonic.net> writes: > I think you really can't make doing the wrong thing hard. > The best you can do is to try to make the right thing as > easy as the wrong thing. Always a good point, and I can say that I am very much in agreement with the outlines of what you have proposed below. My only quibble (and it is minor minor minor) is that "UCA" might well be an opaque term to many reading the standard. How about "human-readable" or some other tag instead? Thomas