Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 11:39:37 -0800
From: csillagasz <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts
 <reply+0166e4ab04791e5738626e9e2e19041d3d0fcf740428eeb992cf00000001183b9af992a169ce17392e66@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2110/450014755@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2110@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2110@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Largest Reference isn't the right concept
 (#2110)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="--==_mimepart_5c23d8f9a50bc_4bf93fa1fead45b46485ed";
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/5xAQQb2Rx1Nz8ClfhdbqJT1dXTI>


----==_mimepart_5c23d8f9a50bc_4bf93fa1fead45b46485ed
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> @bencebeky writes:
> 
> > I enthusiastically support [...] changing absolute indexing to zero-based.
> 
> This had been discussed before. The consensus was to leave it one-based.

My impression is that this consensus was driven by the artifical constraint of Largest Reference having to be able to match the absolute index while also having a dedicated value (of zero) for no dynamic reference.  Martin's proposed change from Largest Reference to Required Insert Count removes this rather contrived constraint and allows the more natural indexing scheme of zero based indexing that matches static table indexing, the majority of developers' mental model, and the majority of implementations' innards.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2110#issuecomment-450014755
----==_mimepart_5c23d8f9a50bc_4bf93fa1fead45b46485ed
Content-Type: text/html;
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<blockquote>
<p><a class=3D"user-mention" data-hovercard-type=3D"user" data-hovercard-=
url=3D"/hovercards?user_id=3D6144440" data-octo-click=3D"hovercard-link-c=
lick" data-octo-dimensions=3D"link_type:self" href=3D"https://github.com/=
bencebeky">@bencebeky</a> writes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I enthusiastically support [...] changing absolute indexing to zero-ba=
sed.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This had been discussed before. The consensus was to leave it one-base=
d.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>My impression is that this consensus was driven by the artifical const=
raint of Largest Reference having to be able to match the absolute index =
while also having a dedicated value (of zero) for no dynamic reference.  =
Martin's proposed change from Largest Reference to Required Insert Count =
removes this rather contrived constraint and allows the more natural inde=
xing scheme of zero based indexing that matches static table indexing, th=
e majority of developers' mental model, and the majority of implementatio=
ns' innards.</p>

<p style=3D"font-size:small;-webkit-text-size-adjust:none;color:#666;">&m=
dash;<br />You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thre=
ad.<br />Reply to this email directly, <a href=3D"https://github.com/quic=
wg/base-drafts/issues/2110#issuecomment-450014755">view it on GitHub</a>,=
 or <a href=3D"https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AWbkq9L0=
Hqf-BXEt7VeCzH9mEa1Zlu9rks5u89B5gaJpZM4ZMybF">mute the thread</a>.<img sr=
c=3D"https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AWbkq8kTzJclV9WpKPYW7HAwYITB=
hFL4ks5u89B5gaJpZM4ZMybF.gif" height=3D"1" width=3D"1" alt=3D"" /></p>
<script type=3D"application/json" data-scope=3D"inboxmarkup">{"api_versio=
n":"1.0","publisher":{"api_key":"05dde50f1d1a384dd78767c55493e4bb","name"=
:"GitHub"},"entity":{"external_key":"github/quicwg/base-drafts","title":"=
quicwg/base-drafts","subtitle":"GitHub repository","main_image_url":"http=
s://github.githubassets.com/images/email/message_cards/header.png","avata=
r_image_url":"https://github.githubassets.com/images/email/message_cards/=
avatar.png","action":{"name":"Open in GitHub","url":"https://github.com/q=
uicwg/base-drafts"}},"updates":{"snippets":[{"icon":"PERSON","message":"@=
csillagasz in #2110: \u003e @bencebeky writes:\r\n\u003e \r\n\u003e \u003=
e I enthusiastically support [...] changing absolute indexing to zero-bas=
ed.\r\n\u003e \r\n\u003e This had been discussed before. The consensus wa=
s to leave it one-based.\r\n\r\nMy impression is that this consensus was =
driven by the artifical constraint of Largest Reference having to be able=
 to match the absolute index while also having a dedicated value (of zero=
) for no dynamic reference.  Martin's proposed change from Largest Refere=
nce to Required Insert Count removes this rather contrived constraint and=
 allows the more natural indexing scheme of zero based indexing that matc=
hes static table indexing, the majority of developers' mental model, and =
the majority of implementations' innards."}],"action":{"name":"View Issue=
","url":"https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2110#issuecomment-4=
50014755"}}}</script>
<script type=3D"application/ld+json">[
{
"@context": "http://schema.org",
"@type": "EmailMessage",
"potentialAction": {
"@type": "ViewAction",
"target": "https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2110#issuecomment=
-450014755",
"url": "https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2110#issuecomment-45=
0014755",
"name": "View Issue"
},
"description": "View this Issue on GitHub",
"publisher": {
"@type": "Organization",
"name": "GitHub",
"url": "https://github.com"
}
}
]</script>=

----==_mimepart_5c23d8f9a50bc_4bf93fa1fead45b46485ed--