Documents with mixed languages

[Philip Linde]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 20:38:12 +0000
Krixano <krixano@protonmail.com> wrote:

> And the argument that this cannot be desired in the spec because the
> spec would explicitly state so is a non-argument.

I am not aware that anyone has made that argument. I certainly haven't.
Perhaps you aren't reading my messages linearly and literally enough.

> People can easily make mistakes or not think about how their words
> might be against what they intended to say, which is why intention
> behind words is more important then the actual words - and hence why
> overly-literal interpretations are in fact *interpretations* and not
> just reading what was written.

Yes, people can make mistakes. If such a mistake has happened here, it
has resulted in the specification (yes, not finalized) doesn't
practically permit indefinitely streamed responses.

> Again, I was never against making the spec more explicit and up to par
> with what was intended. What I am for is not judging implementations
> for using an intended design of the protocol (even if it's not in the
> spec!) when a spec isn't even final yet.

It's the document we have as a basis for writing clients. If it's
wrong, it's wrong. That can be fixed. But telling me that I should dig
through old gopher holes and mailing list archives just to get a sense
of Solderpunk's general opinion on streaming request responses, and
interpret that opinion as a canonical part of the standard is not a
viable basis for a standard.

-- 
Philip