A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Bill de hOra <bill@xxxxxxxxxx> [2007-09-15 16:07]:Tim Bray wrote:On Sep 14, 2007, at 5:35 PM, Joe Cheng wrote:What does "defining new status codes" mean? Does that give me a way of knowing a server is not going to respect the Draft flag?Dear Bill and everyone else: People like Joe are going to invent all sorts of weird voodoo extensions to the protocol,whether we like it or not.I see no reason to suspend technical judgment.If you have a better proposal, I’d love to hear it.
Here: ww.xmpp.org, www.beep.org, www.fipa.org, www.w3.org/2001/sw/. They've done much groundwork in terms of machine driven negotiation. You could look at SSL/TLS handshaking as well I guess.
In particular, each sentence is called "feature" hence the feature spec. But the overall effect is a language that can be used to define private protocols tunneled over Atompub. I'm betting that language will suck, and if it doesn't, it will be a coincidence given its implicitness.
The mU thing is flawed, there's no way to express how features relate to each other; in combination they represent point to point wins at expense of overall fragility.Stopping the features draft won’t reduce fragility unless a better proposal exists. Vendors will make something up if they have to, and if you think the features draft is bad, just *wait* to see what *they* come up with.
Pleading about what vendors will and won't do doesn't sway me; If I did I'd be working on WS technology instead of spending my spare time here. You and Tim are missing the point. I'm not trying to stop people doing this. That said, I don't want this to become a mandated way of doing things by this working group in its current form.
cheers Bill