Hi.
On Mon 2002-11-18 at 19:08:22 -0500, Eric Gillespie wrote:
> Benjamin Pflugmann <benjamin-svn-dev@pflugmann.de> writes:
[...]
> > There is a difference: As Greg pointed out, one never wants to
> > change the default. More precisely: one might want to append to
> > the list, but there should be no reason to ever change any
> > existing item. As a whole list, it is configuration data, the
> > default items are not.
>
> What a strange way to conceive of it.
No. Just an extreme way to express it to pin down a difference.
> The configuration data in discussion is a list. This list has a
> default value, (1 2 3 4). Changing the list to (1 2 3 4 a b c) is
> changing the list; that all the default elements are present does
> not mean the list has not been configured.
Agreed.
> To say that (1 2 3 4) is some default data but the configurable list
> defaults to () but the administrator may change it is true from a
> certain point of view, but it seems a very contorted way to view
> things.
You lost me here. Either I am simply not able to follow or you
misunderstood what I was saying.
[...]
> I *do* have a problem with the natural consequence of your and
> Greg's point of view: not being able to remove the default items
> from the list.
That is not a consequence, but a pre-condition. At least for me - I
cannot talk for Greg here, but it was how I understood Greg. And I
thought I made clear that I consider it a pre-condition ("there should
be no reason to ever change any existing item").
> The list needs to be configurable, not described in some contorted
> way such that the user is allowed only to add to the list, never
> subtract from it.
Why? Why does one need to be able to set that image/x-xbitmap is
binary?
I thought the whole point was that being some text form is a fixed
property of mime types, not something that would change.
"No one has an interest in configuring whether image/x-xbitmap is
composed of text or not"
Do you agree or not? If not, we can stop right here, because we are
talking at cross-purposes. Greg made that claim, I did not see you
deny it (or misunderstood you) and therefore assumed that this is a
common basis. All I said implied that claim. So if you do not agree,
we were talking about different things.
Bye,
Benjamin.
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Tue Nov 19 06:08:06 2002