5 ms·
If only there was a process whereby you could propose corrections to existing standards or even propose a new standard to replace the existing standard instead
by spiralpolitik 11y ago
If only there was a process whereby you could propose corrections to existing standards or even propose a new standard to replace the existing standard instead of whining about it on Hacker News...oh wait.
Seriously if these things bother you then and you think you have a better idea write it up in an RFC.
- adrusi 11y agoWriting a good RFC is hard work, does it not make sense to write informally about your ideas first to see if they have any appeal before investing the time into proposing a new standard? Writing about it this way also exposes the problems to people who otherwise wouldn't give two fucks about webdav. If the author had simply submited an RFC, only the people working on calendar/contact syncing tech would take notice. I find it sad that you consider pointing out the flaws in something to be "whining".
- spiralpolitik 11y agoIsn't that the point of the RFC process ? It's right there in the name "Request for Comment". The whole point of the RFC structure is that it forces you to lay out what someone would need to implement your RFC, which is what you need to even begin the discussion on a new standard. A lot of the successful early internet standards followed this path. They weren't written by committee, they were written by one person with an idea to make things better. And I only consider it whining if you point out the flaws, then don't do something about the flaws using the process for correcting them. The internet was built by the RFC process and its poorer these days because people feel to follow it is "a bit of hard work".
- Anthony-G 11y agoThe documents may be called “Requests for Comments” but in reality, most of the modern RFCs dealing with Internet protocols simply became de facto standards – until they were superseded by subsequent RFCs.
- adrusi 11y agowhich is what you need to even begin the discussion on a new standard. I only consider it whining if you point out the flaws, then don't do something about the flaws using the process for correcting them. To even begin discussion? The discussion begins with pointing out the flaws. One person writes an article pointing out some flaws in a technology, then people comment saying how X is actually not a flaw, and how Y is also quite a major flaw. After that you start focusing on brainstorming ideas that address these flaws. Then you refine those ideas and come up with some specification or prototype implementation (followed by a specification based on it). All this has to happen before what you claim to be the beginning of the discussion. You can do all of these things in private, maybe consulting a couple friends and colleagues, but you don't have to. You can also do it completely out in the open, on a public forum. In doing so you increase the noise, but you also increase the signal. Do you consider this process whining?
- detaro 11y agoYes, because just starting to write an RFC on your own is THE way to get something moving...
- untitaker_ 11y agoAuthor here: I don't have a strictly better idea.
- geofft 11y agoThe process of doing that involves getting a technical community to vet your idea and provide perspectives and related work that you hadn't seen, so that by the time you're approaching writing the RFC, you have rough consensus and running code. If you want to call that "whining about it on Hacker News," you're welcome to your choice of terminology, but I'm not sure why you think that's something separate from the process of proposing a new standard.