On Tue Mar 29 09:53:32 2011, Dave CROCKER wrote:
I think that we should move more into that business.
I see no problem with actually specifying a language-specific API
when
the WG involved has the skills to do a good job.
Wow. What is the list of languages we should work on? C, C++,
Javascript, Java, Python, ...?
COBOL, obviously.
More seriously, C has the benefits that an actual C API can often be
rapidly pulled into another language, and if reasonably well designed
can be remodelled for other languages easily.
Another is to do more and better interoperability testing and let
the API developers see their deficiencies and fix them. The
benefit of this is that it moves the problem to the folks with the
knowledge and incentives to work on it and it takes this very
expensive specification task out of the IETF's critical path.
Right, but that's in line (more or less) with what Sam went on to say
in the paragraph you snipped:
"When we do not, specifying abstract interfaces we expect platforms
to provide still has significant value".
It'll often be sufficient to point out the shortcomings and specify
what data needs to be accessed and (roughly) what form.
I'm all in favour of this.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net -
xmpp:dwd(_at_)dave(_dot_)cridland(_dot_)net
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf