Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 01:47:01 -0700
From: Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: [spf-discuss] THIS POLL IS USELESS
In-Reply-To: <200405301702(_dot_)i4UH28fW025897(_at_)m5p(_dot_)com>
References: <200405301702(_dot_)i4UH28fW025897(_at_)m5p(_dot_)com>
OK, that's got your attention, has it? :)
[...]
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".
No such implication was intended. The presence of your message-id in
the header of my message was accidental. I am sorry you came to this
incorrect conclusion.
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.
I disagree. The SPF syntax is extensible by revising and updating the
standard, which would then trigger updates of both client and server
software. XML's extensibility doesn't really help, since there's zero
chance that you, as a server, could build in something that all clients
would instantly understand.
* Yes, extensibility IS a requirement, and version numbers don't cut it.
I disagree. Version numbers are necessary.
* 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.
Extensibility for its own sake is not the point. XML will, by definition,
always be "more extensible" than anything else, but so what?
* 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.
I believe it is incorrect to say that the extensibility issue is being
ignored. It is being addressed in a way which is relevant to the problem
at hand, as opposed to being allowed to take over the entire problem
definition.
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.
Here we agree.
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>
You're welcome. I'm glad we're having this discussion and I hope you will
accept my apology for the misunderstanding. -- George Mitchell