[Standards] Entity Capabilities Woes
dot at dotat.at
Wed Mar 14 16:16:48 UTC 2007
I'm somewhat baffled by the arguments against Matt's suggestion. It's
basically the same design as used by many IETF protocols (SMTP, IMAP,
POP3) which has worked quite well for over a decade. In particular, client
developers don't need to care about caps they don't support, and if they
are working on a new capability while it is under development (before it
has a stable cap name) then they are already committed to following a
My main argument against Matt would be "standard is better than better".
f.a.n.finch <dot at dotat.at> http://dotat.at/
FORTH TYNE DOGGER FISHER GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 4 OR 5, OCCASIONALLY 6
LATER. SLIGHT OR MODERATE. SHOWERS. GOOD.
More information about the Standards