On Sunday, February 9, 2025 7:16:16 AM CET Ondřej Surý wrote:
> I absolute agree that the context matters. But there are more contexts - the
> historical context and the current discourse context. You can’t ignore
> either.
>
> From historical context, we can probably deduce that the word “groper”
> On 9. 2. 2025, at 5:35, Michael De Roover wrote:
>
> Long story short, context matters. Paul Vixie made the context pretty clear,
> as an authoritative figure. Perhaps we were mistaken to tie slavery into this
> discussion in the first place. Or perhaps the designers at the time were
> mistake
> On 7. 2. 2025, at 9:05, Bjørn Mork via bind-users
> wrote:
>
> Not sure where to draw the line. Are the 2024 rules final, or are we
> going to continue this whack-a-mole game forever?
This question is a logical fallacy. The society evolves and the technology
cannot be ignorant to the chang
On Friday, February 7, 2025 9:05:16 AM CET Bjørn Mork via bind-users wrote:
> Personally I am mostly worried about the potentional number of technical
> terms we have not yet identified as "bad". The set of words we may have
> to replace in the future is virtually unlimited. Most colours are
> ob
Terminology, Power, and Exclusionary Language in Internet-Drafts and RFCs
Abstract
This document argues for more inclusive language conventions
sometimes used by RFC authors and the RFC Production Centre in
Internet-Drafts that are work in progress, and in new RFCs tha
5 matches
Mail list logo
