Re: Should Inline be private in the private part of a package spec?

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message 
news:50375153$0$6573$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net...
> On 24.08.12 06:40, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>> "Vasiliy Molostov" <molostoff@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:op.wjgv6v1fka8ora@aspire.local...
>> ...
>>> And these parsers want to have a common shared format to interchange 
>>> data
>>> between each other, to bring ease into our life.
>>
>> And criminals. And marketers, and government snoops. And they'll get a 
>> *lot*
>> more benefit from this than you ever will.
>>
>> Thanks, but no tanks. I prefer to limit sharing as much as possible.
>
> That's fine, but surely you don't want an ad of an Ada compiler
> to fail because the other end is not prepared to fully input your
> binary description? The number of WordPerfect documents advertising
> products has diminished, I should think. Presenting the same material
> in XHTML works better, even when some readers have interest only
> in specific parts they can identify.

Funny, I've been suggesting using HTML since the beginning. And obviously, 
you don't need to limit true broadcast information (information that you 
want everyone to have). But that's a small percentage of all information.

Anyway, you guys (and most of the world) are on the road to hell. [Aside: 
not intended to be a religious comment.] I'd rather not take that particular 
journey.

                    Randy.