On 4.5.2017 04:47, Pete Resnick wrote: > On 3 May 2017, at 18:57, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> ...I don't think it does any harm to over-communicate; if we're going >> to talk about a controversial practice like header "enrichment", it >> seems reasonable to me that we should put the appropriate context with >> it, rather than relying on the reader having a full understanding not >> only of the whole document, but the context within which it was written. > > As I said earlier, I think it's perfectly appropriate to make sure that > we're not endorsing any of these practices in this document, so I have > no problem "over-communicating", for example in 2.6.5. And so long as > "appropriate context" doesn't mean "we must explain in excruciating > detail the wrongness of each and every wrong thing about these > practices", I'm fine giving a little context. I just worry from some of I agree with Pete here. Little more context, or just repeated notice "this practice is evil and listed here for completeness" would be enough for this document. Redundancy in natural languages helps to get the point across. Let's add some redundancy! Petr Špaček @ CZ.NIC > the comments that some folks don't want to make mention of any practice > without both an explicit rejection of the practice (beyond the context > setting at the beginning of the document that it is not the purpose of > the document to endorse, but instead simply catalog, these practices) > and a statement of alternatives to each of the practices. I think that's > unreasonable to ask of this sort of document. So long as it says up > front that it is not endorsing any practice, and there is nothing in the > description of any particular practice that could be mistaken for an > endorsement, that's enough. > > pr