Re: issue: collection typing

[Dare Obasanjo <kpako@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Robert Sayre <mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> This is a strong argument. Dare is suggesting that
> omitting something 
> because it might be crufty for some applications
> could be harmful. I 
> think it's pretty obvious which side of the
> Basic/Advanced divide this 
> falls on. For Dare and others that may not have been
> following closely 
> for the past few months: The WG agreed to split the
> protocol draft in 
> two parts: Basic and "Administration", with the idea
> that the Basic 
> draft would cover something approximating the
> current draft. See 
> PaceTwoProtocolDrafts.

What is the ETA for producing the next draft of the
APP spec? It seems there is a lot of stuff that's
scattered about in Paces and people's heads that
aren't available to folks who haven't been following
the list. 

I just read
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceTwoProtocolDocs
and it seems I have some catching up to do on all the
Paces. 

I'm not really sure I understand the reason for
creating two docs and it isn't clear what the split
should be between both docs from the Pace. For
example, I don't consider creating or fetching
comments an 'advanced' administrative task. In fact,
fetching comments really should be part of the format
spec since it will most likely be done by feed
readers. 

THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #222
I reserve the right to execute any henchmen who appear to be a little too intelligent, powerful, or devious. However if I do so, I will not at some subsequent point shout "Why am I surrounded by these incompetent fools?!"


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail