RE: We can't use RSD

["Danny Ayers" <danny666@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

It is a lot more verbose than what has been suggested for introspection, and
differs stylistically from the rest of the format. Personally I'd rather see
something written from scratch for consistency, but if we're going to use an
existing standard we might as well use one of the more generally deployed
service description formats such as WSDL. Blogging might be an island now,
but it won't remain so forever.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Daniel Berlinger
> Sent: 10 August 2003 07:52
> To: atom-syntax@xxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: We can't use RSD
>
>
>
> Danny,
>
> Can you please tell me where the "compromise" is?
>
> d.
>
> >
> > I'm sorry, this sounds as barmy as any conspiracy theory.
> There's nothing in
> > Daniel Berlinger's posts to warrant such flaming, except
> perhaps the use of
> > "yuck", which I must admit sets alarm bells ringing. However, I do agree
> > with the conclusion, no RSD. I think the best approach is to write the
> > introspection part of the spec based on the requirements, rather than
> > compromise to what's already deployed. We don't need to use RSD.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Danny.
> >