[arc-discuss] Re: ARC case info broken on OS.o?

[John Plocher]

Bart Smaalders wrote:
> You're welcome to suggest mechanisms; I was repeatedly told that
> that the ARC insists on having copies of all the material since
> external web pages could change at any time.


My comment was that y'all chose the wrong material to use as a
reference spec.  You could have also submitted the source code
for the project as well; it still wouldn't have been appropriate
ARC fasttrack spec material :-)

Since you classified the entire language and extentions as
Uncommitted, with the intent to track the community no matter
what direction it went, it would have been sufficient (in my
mind) to simply have a list of the function names (a table of
contents page, maybe) instead of the thousands and thousands
of pages of docs.

Since you hopefully didn't expect ARC members to read it, it
serves no value to create it, provide it or archive it.  (On
the other hand, if you /did/ expect them to to read it, the
case shouldn't have been filed as a fasttrack because it would
then fail the "simple and obvious" clause...)

   -John