5 ms·

People don't seem to mind when Chrome does it [0]. The response "standards aren't a death pact" stands out in particular. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/ite

People don't seem to mind when Chrome does it [0]. The response "standards aren't a death pact" stands out in particular. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13860682 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13860682

perching_aix 2y ago
Might be just my personal impression, but I'm pretty sure Chrome is extremely notorious for abusing its market leader position, including in this way. So gonna have to disagree there, from my view people do mind Chrome and its implementation particularities quite a lot.
- dijit 2y ago
  I think the parent is equally denigrating the situation. Leaders choose the standards, especially as they approach monopoly. Worse still: people will come out of the woodwork to actively defend the monopolist de facto standard producer.
  - nsnshsuejeb 2y ago
    Not defending the producer, just making pragmatic choices!
    - dwattttt 2y ago
      Pragmatic choices is what Postel is known for now, and it makes for a pretty confused world when everyone makes different pragmatic choices.
akira2501 2y ago
Death pact? Jeez. Standards simply prevent people from having to waste time debugging dumb issues that rightfully could have been avoided.
- eviks 2y ago
  They also add to the time wasted by not removing needless complexity in due time
  - akira2501 2y ago
    The complexity of CRLF? The balance here, of course, being backwards compatability. I'd sooner kill EBCDIC, bad ASCII and Code Pages than worry about CRLF if we didn't have to care about ancient systems. Programming languages still retain C's operator precedence hierarchy even though it was itself meant to be a backwards compatible compromise and leads to errors around logical operator expressions. Anyways, this article is about actively breaking systems like some kind of protocol terrorist in order to achieve an outcome at any cost, if it was merely along the lines of "CRLF considered harmful in new protocols" I'd have nothing to say.
    - eviks 2y ago
      > The complexity of CRLF? You didn't limit your general admiration of standards to CRLF, so no, not only that. > about actively breaking systems like some kind of protocol terrorist in order to achieve an outcome at any cost, That's simply false, he isn't > Almost all implementations of these protocols will accept a bare NL as an end-of-line mark, even if it is technically incorrect.
      - akira2501 2y ago
        > You didn't limit your general admiration of standards to CRLF, so no, not only that. So your position, then, is that all standards include "needless complexity?" What argument are you actually trying to make here? > That's simply false, he isn't Yea.. that's why the word "like" is present, it implies a near association, not a direct accusation. > Almost all implementations of these protocols will accept a bare NL as an end-of-line mark, even if it is technically incorrect. So, right back to my original point, then, standards prevent people from having to debug dumb issues that could have been avoided. This advice is basically "go ahead, create dumb issues, see if I care." I may have flippantly labeled that as "protocol terrorism" but I don't think it's pure hyperbole either.

perching_aix 2y ago

Might be just my personal impression, but I'm pretty sure Chrome is extremely notorious for abusing its market leader position, including in this way. So gonna have to disagree there, from my view people do mind Chrome and its implementation particularities quite a lot.

dijit 2y ago
I think the parent is equally denigrating the situation. Leaders choose the standards, especially as they approach monopoly. Worse still: people will come out of the woodwork to actively defend the monopolist de facto standard producer.
- nsnshsuejeb 2y ago
  Not defending the producer, just making pragmatic choices!
  - dwattttt 2y ago
    Pragmatic choices is what Postel is known for now, and it makes for a pretty confused world when everyone makes different pragmatic choices.

akira2501 2y ago

Death pact? Jeez. Standards simply prevent people from having to waste time debugging dumb issues that rightfully could have been avoided.

eviks 2y ago
They also add to the time wasted by not removing needless complexity in due time
- akira2501 2y ago
  The complexity of CRLF? The balance here, of course, being backwards compatability. I'd sooner kill EBCDIC, bad ASCII and Code Pages than worry about CRLF if we didn't have to care about ancient systems. Programming languages still retain C's operator precedence hierarchy even though it was itself meant to be a backwards compatible compromise and leads to errors around logical operator expressions. Anyways, this article is about actively breaking systems like some kind of protocol terrorist in order to achieve an outcome at any cost, if it was merely along the lines of "CRLF considered harmful in new protocols" I'd have nothing to say.
  - eviks 2y ago
    > The complexity of CRLF? You didn't limit your general admiration of standards to CRLF, so no, not only that. > about actively breaking systems like some kind of protocol terrorist in order to achieve an outcome at any cost, That's simply false, he isn't > Almost all implementations of these protocols will accept a bare NL as an end-of-line mark, even if it is technically incorrect.
    - akira2501 2y ago
      > You didn't limit your general admiration of standards to CRLF, so no, not only that. So your position, then, is that all standards include "needless complexity?" What argument are you actually trying to make here? > That's simply false, he isn't Yea.. that's why the word "like" is present, it implies a near association, not a direct accusation. > Almost all implementations of these protocols will accept a bare NL as an end-of-line mark, even if it is technically incorrect. So, right back to my original point, then, standards prevent people from having to debug dumb issues that could have been avoided. This advice is basically "go ahead, create dumb issues, see if I care." I may have flippantly labeled that as "protocol terrorism" but I don't think it's pure hyperbole either.