28 Dec, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 41st comment:
Votes: 0
Hmm, I edited my post while you responded. I think that Samson's question relates to what I just said: there are inherent reasons for following standards, even if people have workarounds for bad implementations.
28 Dec, 2008, Guest wrote in the 42nd comment:
Votes: 0
Lobotomy said:
In instances where all implementations define support for the improper behavior in addition to the proper behavior, a condition rendering both methods pragmatically equal, yes it does in fact need to be defended as following the standard then becomes a moot point. Illustrating relevant instances where support is lacking for the improper code provides a logical argument for the use of the standard method as it then provides a margin of higher compatibility.


Well, I think I've already addressed the twisted logic here once, not only with the Microsoftian example, but with the MXP example as well. Establishing standards and then breaking them and then expecting everyone to follow both the original standard and your new broken one is just weird. And then when everyone supports both, somehow the original standard is no longer worth defending? That's even weirder. When a clusterfuck like this happens, sane programmers scrap the crud and go back to the original standards to see how it was supposed to get done.

I'm sorry, but I'm really having a hard time finding anything legitimate in your argument to justify deliberately disobeying the standards.
28 Dec, 2008, Cratylus wrote in the 43rd comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
Hmm, I edited my post while you responded.


If we had a chat window we wouldn't have to worry
about it, would we? But NOOOooOOOO nobody wants
*that*, that would be too convEEEnient.


Samson said:
I'm sorry, but I'm really having a hard time finding anything legitimate in your argument to justify deliberately disobeying the standards.


Finally we come to what it's all about for people
like Samson and DavidHaley. It's all about control and
obedience. I knew it from the start. Well, I disagree.

You guys are worser than Microsoft and Kyndig, COMBINED.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

PS Was that "drama" enough? I'm still trying to fit in
to this friendly forum, not quite sure if I've got it right.
28 Dec, 2008, sasuke wrote in the 44th comment:
Votes: 0
Way to go with the OasisOLC snippet! It's one thing that I still haven't fully incorporated into my ackfuss mud.

As far as the whole \n\r \r\n thing goes I switched it on my ackfuss to be proper, but I really didn't notice a difference. If I ran into a game where it broke and didn't work with Mushclient, I would simply play another mud instead. I think it's insane your arguing over such a little matter. You know you don't have to use someones nonstandard code if you don't want to. LMAO! It's interesting how long this thread has been derailed.
29 Dec, 2008, quixadhal wrote in the 45th comment:
Votes: 0
40.0/45