>Exactly. Like it or not, this *is* the term in common use
>and *this is* how the vocabulary gets (re)defined.
It is fundamentally impossible for me to use these terms within
any protocol that requires consistency in requirements, which
pretty much covers anything I'd care to write for the IETF.
They are self-contradictory.
>The goal of the taxonomy draft was to document the current
>practice, not to impose new definitions or artificial terminology
>even if it seems more appropriate for a reason.
Was that the goal, or the task at hand? It seems to me that the
fundamental goal is to produce a document that is useful for the
Internet community. If the taxonomy produced cannot be used, then
it is better not to produce it at all and let the ugly terminology
be replaced as ephemera.
This is all very confusing to me. A taxonomy is, by definition,
a classification in order to create a standard terminology. And yet
this one is just supposed to document current practice?
...........................................................
Roy T. Fielding, Chief Scientist fielding@ebuilt.com
eBuilt, Inc. tel:+1.949.609.0000
9401 Jeronimo Rd., Suite 100 fax:+1.949.609.0001
Irvine, CA 92618 USA http://www.eBuilt.com
...........................................................
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:27 MST