Doug Tody wrote:
Hi All -

Some more quick comments are in order here. First, what we are discussing
is a convention, hence revisiting the design is not appropriate (unless
someone wants to propose moving towards a standard; I probably would
not suggest that myself in this case). Second, on the specific issue of
Unix-oriented concepts in the design, this is not necessarily a problem
for something like we have here.
SNIP

- Doug

I understand better from this and preceding comments the essential
difference between a standard proposal and a convention registry. But
one of the strong cases for having a convention registry is that others
with similar needs might adopt an existing convention for their own
purpose, thus short-cutting design and testing, and making a bigger pool
of complying systems.

Thus, although we might not criticise a convention in the same rigorous
was as we would a standards proposal, surely it is apposite to append a
SHORTCOMINGS section where it is admitted that, say, this convention
doesn't generalise very well and that some of its provisions (and I
maintain executable is not a good idea) may not be advisable.

Pete