forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>
Subject Conflict resolution (Re: URI spaces: source, processing, result)
Date Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:56:39 GMT
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 09:17:36AM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> 
> Jeff Turner wrote:
> >On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 09:35:47PM +0100, Steven Noels wrote:
> >
> >>Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >>
> 
> >>Trying to bring the town of you together, I see there is some general 
> >>tendency to tolerate and even advocate some source:/ or scheme:/ like 
> >>think, if not for the same reason. While I love to KISS, the aspect of 
> >>having to declare my links in my future Forrest docs like <link 
> >>href="protocol:name"/> feels kinda good, protocol being things like
> >>
> >>- javadoc
> >>- code
> >>- keyword
> >>- index
> >>- raw
> >>- href (default)
> >>- linkmap (indirection layer, also to aforementioned protocols)
> >
> >
> >One I'm really keen on is "mail:", for referencing list emails by
> >Message-Id.  For example, <link
> >href="mail:3DF7A1A3.6010109@outerthought.org"> gets translated into <a
> >href="http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/....">.
> >
> >But anyway..
> >
> >Once we have 'linkmap' implemented, that accounts for 95% of relative
> >links in our xdocs.  So eventually, unprefixed links will become an
> >anachronism.  So why try to "guess" if a link is static to preserve the
> >current prefix-less status quo, when we want Forrest to eventually have
> >_all_ links prefixed?
> 
> Ask yourself, what should we use the prefix for?
> 
> In the proposal mail I sent (yes, I do feel mildly offended by your
> massive snips and sarcastic comments), I tried to explain my POV.

Sorry.  You vastly underestimated how deep the misunderstanding runs.
What to you were the core issues of the debate separated out, to me were
a collection of rehashes of previous, divisive arguments with zero
relevance to the current debate.  Hence they got snipped.

Reread in the context of this email, I can see _vaguely_ what you're on
about.

Figuring out what the hell Forrest should look like is a _hard_ job.

Figuring out what someone _else_ thinks Forrest should look like is even
harder.

When two people with completely different, semi-formed ideas start
pushing their POV on the list, it degenerates into point-by-point
bashing, with no hope of a common understanding being reached.

Two possible solutions:

a) Say 'to hell with 100% consensus'; take a majority vote, in which
   mostly bewildered bystanders vote on who sounds more convincing.
b) Both contenders forego chances to push their own POV, until they have
   a complete understanding of the other person's POV.  Then a solution
   naturally emerges.

Most of the time, a) and b) have the same net effect. a) is much faster
but less politically correct.

So, do you:

1) Have lots of time to patiently explain your POV, in multiple emails
over the coming days?  We can start with "Jeff explaining Nicola's POV"
and "Nicola explaining Jeff's POV" emails.
2) Want to withdraw your -1 and trust that The World According to Jeff is
not a dystopian nightmare of mixed concerns.


--Jeff

Mime
View raw message