From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org  Fri Jan 23 21:18:40 2009
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom7
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom7@www2.open-std.org
Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id AD263CA6002; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:18:40 +0100 (CET)
X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from mail.jpl.nasa.gov (sentrion2.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.139.106])
	by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CF67CA5FED
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:18:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mprox2.jpl.nasa.gov (mprox2.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.160.141])
	by mail.jpl.nasa.gov (Switch-3.3.2mp/Switch-3.3.2mp) with ESMTP id n0NKIZEH015753
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:18:36 GMT
Received: from [137.79.7.57] (math.jpl.nasa.gov [137.79.7.57])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by mprox2.jpl.nasa.gov (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id n0NKIYid011845
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT)
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:18:34 -0800
Subject: Quote from Dan Zuras
From: Van Snyder <Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov
To: sc22wg5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Yes
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:18:34 -0800
Message-Id: <1232741914.15119.933.camel@math.jpl.nasa.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.3 (2.12.3-8.el5_2.3) 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Source-IP: math.jpl.nasa.gov [137.79.7.57]
X-Source-Sender: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov
X-AUTH: Authorized
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

This is from a letter from Dan Zuras.  It's germane to our
deliberations.

        We're in the standards business, not the bless-every-existing-
        method business.

        Where the behavior of existing implementations differ, we should
        choose the best behavior.  Where none of the existing behaviors
        are adequate, we should choose something new.

        But, while it may be convenient to have an existing
        implementation out there to point to as an example of what we
        wish to codify, it should be the LAST thing on our minds.

        We should do right first.  We should be expedient only when
        any answer will work & one is obviously easier than the others.