OK, that's got your attention, has it? :)
--George Mitchell <george(_at_)m5p(_dot_)com> wrote:
Before we waste any more time on XML, could we take a quick poll on
whether we want to use it at all? I request all of the members of this
list respond (once) to the list in this thread, stating simply whether
you believe the SPF specification should include the use of XML.
1. The poll is pretty much useless for our purposes. I would really like
to see more choices, so we can get to the heart of the issues and possibly
solve them.
* Opposed to any XML, due to bloat, patent/IP issues, hate MS, other (list
any that apply)
* Let the receivers implement both, so that the publishers may publish
either one.
* Use XML only
2. I resent the implication that my post (which you replied to in order to
start this thread) was a "waste of time".
I did get one or two replies to my two separate posts about extensibility.
I am guessing that everyone was so put off by the XML discussion (and
today, so busy replying "me too" to this poll :) to UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM
REALLY SAYING.
Here is the boiled-down version.
* If extensibility is a requirement, XML wins. It at least has syntax
extensibility. So far it has hand-waving in place of feature
extensibility, but that can be sorted out easily.
* Yes, extensibility IS a requirement, and version numbers don't cut it.
* This is the tricky part. NO I AM NOT -- REPEAT NOT -- SAYING THAT XML
IS BETTER. I am saying that we have an opportunity RIGHT NOW to FIX the
SPF spec so that it has as much or even more extensibility than XML and
still remain lean.
* If market forces are to decide, and I think they will, I think SPF plain
syntax will win. I sure want it to! I would like to come back in a year
or two and find 99% of LMAP info written in SPF and see XML fall by the
wayside. But, this will never happen if we ignore the extensibility issue.
People will naturally choose the simpler format UNLESS they have to
sacrifice features.
Here is the summary boiled down even further: I want SPF to win over XML,
but I am also not willing to give up extensibility. I believe I can have
both. I cannot do it alone.
Regardless of how you feel about XML, IF you think extensibility is
important, will you PLEASE take the time to read and respond on that
thread? Michael Brumm wrote an excellent summary about two hours ago under
the thread "Should SPF be Frozen or Extensible? (XML insights)"
Don't be confused by the XML in the name... this is really about whether
extensibility is needed in SPF core.
Thank you for your time.
gregc
--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>