Re: [rfc-i] draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

The problem was to my mind very clearly stated.  We burn person-hours 
figuring out what we mean each time any document gets tagged this way. 
We want the relationship tags, so we can find things.  But our current 
"updates" tag has multiple meanings, so people get very confused.

One choice would be to explicitly document all the meanings we use it 
for, and say "this is what it means.  Sorry."

We could, I suppose, pick a single definition for "updates" and say that 
from here on, that is what it means.  This has the drawback of leaving 
outside folks confused as they will not know know of any flag day of 
meaning change.  And leaves us with no coverage for the other meanings.

We could make up new terms, and try to specify more clearly their 
meaning.  We then document that older documents used "updates" with a 
range of meanings, and newer documents use "foo" and "bar" with the 
following definitions that the community (presumably) has agreed and 
which are more clear.  (Nothing is perfect, it is human language.)  That 
is, as I understand it, what the document in front of us attempts to start.

I am sure that there are other choices.  (We are much too clever.)  But 
I would prefer not to stick my head in the sand and pretend something 
that regularly causes this much confusion is just fine.

Yours,
Joel

On 3/25/2020 11:21 PM, Joseph Touch wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2020, at 4:54 PM, Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> ...
>> So the logic seems to be "Amended" would NOT have a clear difference
>> in meaning over "Updated" unless you try to go into gory
>> details.
> 
> Doesn’t help even if you do.
> 
> Amended means changed (presumably for the better).
> 
> Updated literally means ‘newer’.
> 
> Even native-speaking English nit-pickers would have a hard time arguing the difference, except when trying to fit a crossword clue.
> 
>> The main reason for changing words is to support a
>> change in semantic.
> 
> In that regard, it fails.
> 
> What PROBLEM is driving this?
> 
> Can we please STOP burning person-hours on this sort of nonsense?
> 
> Joe
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest