The less specification the better

plavarre at lexar.com plavarre at lexar.com
Thu Sep 20 18:36:52 PDT 2007


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* <plavarre at lexar.com>
*
Curtis,
The less specification the better, surely we agree.
The less to test, the less to misunderstand, the less to implement, etc.
In that way, "obsolete" is a better spec than a phrase like "once meant
MMC-2 and now is no longer maintained" can be.
Less is more, in this sense.
///
Now if we're instead saying something else, like we have a concrete
legacy of old Bios to support that boot well only from the Dvd/cd discs
found in code 02h and not the discs found in code 06h, that would be an
interesting discussion.
Is that what you're saying your motivation really is?
I'm not just trying to be difficult, this time around. You're really
making no sense to me, as yet.
Are you making sense to you?
Have I said anything untrue?
Most curiously yours,
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Curtis
Stevens
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 5:56 PM
To: jgeldman; billmc37 at ctesc.net; t10 at t10.org; mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com
Subject: RE: USB Mass storage sub-class for MMC devices
...
The only value proposition there is in marking something obsolete is
that you do not have to maintain the feature in the specification as new
features are added.  In this case, the capability is in use and has very
little in the way of maintenance needs.  If you change "MMC-2" to "MMC-2
and later", then there should be no maintenance needed as the doc moves
forward.
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org



More information about the T10 mailing list