Re: COMMENTARY: The War, or Has Anyone Actually Read ESR?

[John R Sheets <dusk smsi-roman com>]

Bowie Poag wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, Tom Vogt wrote:
> > it was aimed at from the start to merge the documents later, and throughout
> > the initial phases of the RSG, bowie and I have had some e-mail exchange to
> > make sure this happens.
> 
> Im at the point now, that given what I see in your style guide, I *dont*
> want it merging with the UISG, personally. 

This statement makes me nervous, and more than a little
concerned....

> I think I speak for the other
> co-maintainers on this issue as well.. Doing so will produce a final style
> guide of lesser quality than what we could have delivered with the UISG
> alone.

Well, nobody suggested cut & paste.  I believe Tom meant that we
should merge the _ideas_ contained by the RSG into the UISG.  I
agree that the presentation format, and even the compliancy level
standards don't really mesh.  But the _ideas_ are universal. 
Like Tom has said, the RSG is merely his attempt to organize the
_ideas_ presented here in the list.  He has added very little
content of his own.  So, if most of the RSG represents ideas from
the list, how can that drag down the quality of the UISG?  It
seems to represent a goodly portion of the list's opinion.

> I dont mean this as a slam against Tom -- Its just that its even
> now, to me at least, abundantly clear that the UISG is going to be a far
> more consistant document than tom's project. To merge the two projects
> would be to introduce inconsistancy into the UISG, and I dont want that.

Okay.  Start by giving some specific examples on how adding ideas
from the RSG into the UISG would create inconsistencies.  I've
already conceded that the format & compliancy scheme don't
match.  Do you have any other issues?

John