From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 20eaee92 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 15:51:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 7A9589BCFD; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 01:51:39 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D53F9BCEB; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 01:51:21 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id B6B9F9BCEB; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 01:51:19 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mcvoy.com (mcvoy.com [192.169.23.250]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A66F69BCE3 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 01:51:17 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mcvoy.com (Postfix, from userid 3546) id 3336535E122; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 07:51:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 07:51:17 -0800 From: Larry McVoy To: Ralph Corderoy Message-ID: <20200211155117.GD852@mcvoy.com> References: <202002110332.01B3WwWE015186@tahoe.cs.Dartmouth.EDU> <20200211035340.GA852@mcvoy.com> <20200211112425.CA23522170@orac.inputplus.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200211112425.CA23522170@orac.inputplus.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Subject: Re: [TUHS] V9 shell [was Re: Warner's Early Unix Presentation] X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: tuhs@tuhs.org, Doug McIlroy Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 11:24:25AM +0000, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > > > Postel's principle: "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in > > > what you accept from others" was doctrine in early HTML specs, and > > > led to disastrous disagreement among browsers' interpretation of web > > > pages. Sadly, the "principle" lives on despite its having been > > > expunged from the HTML spec. > > I often point to this Internet Draft when Postel's Law is brought up in > modern discussions about letting standards slip. > > The Harmful Consequences of Postel's Maxim > M. Thomson, Mozilla, 2015-03-09 > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-postel-was-wrong-00 > > After looking at divergence over time, and long-term costs, it suggests > instead ???Protocol designs and implementations should be maximally > strict???. A shame it never became an RFC. > > Arguing Postel's Law for accepting to deviate is easy as those arguing > for strictness have to work out how the laxness could cause a problem. Perhaps I'm being too kind, but I think people are being a little hard on Jon. I believe what he was pushing for was "it just works". Anyone who has been involved with a long lived software base knows that as you roll out new versions you can break backwards compat. Nobody likes it when you do that.