Re: issue: collection typing

[Dare Obasanjo <kpako@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Bill de hÓra <bill@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> I find having an admin spec broken out entirely
> natural for the 
> protocol, tho' I'd agree that some requirements
> might not be in the 
> right place right now. But once they're spec'd
> cohesively, shuffling 
> them round in the near-term shouldn't be a problem.

Two questions: 

1.) Can you give me examples of administrative tasks
vs. basic tasks? 

2.) Is the assumption that people may write clients
that only perform basic tasks but not administrative
tasks? 

>From my perpective it is likely that clients may want
to support even smaller subsets than just
administrative vs. basic so that split may not be
terribly useful in practice. I already have people
walking up to me saying they'd like to build a client
that just manages a user's lists in MSN Spaces and
others who simply want to build a photo album client
and could care less about blogging. This wouldn't
suggest to me that there should be separate specs for
each of those subsets and then developers of tools
like MarsEdit & Blogjet would have to read 3 or 4
specs to put it all together. 

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!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/