On 7 February 2010 13:27, Roan Kattouw <roan.kattouw(a)gmail.com> wrote:
There's no reason why it couldn't be the other
way around: an
intersection feature could be written and deployed *first*, *then* the
category trees on Commons would be gradually migrated to the new
system. Issues like nonsense results for automatic flattening could be
migitated by disabling features or making them less visible.
*Precisely*. This is why the new (and it is new) demand to trash the
present category tree before *possibly* implementing a category
intersection feature is, in practical terms, indistinguishable from
sheer contemptuous obstructionism. Daniel may be terribly offended
that I dare to be acerbic about his expression of contempt, but I find
his expression of contempt rather more offensive.
- d.