spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: the problem of regime change

2004-05-31 11:40:39
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 08:33:48PM +0200, Lars B. Dybdahl wrote:
| 
| My opinion is clear: If you like the path of the internet, TCP/IP, 
| HTTP, SMTP, e-mail etc., SPF version 1 has the syntax we need.
| 
| If you believe in Microsoft Network, CompuServe, ATM, ActiveX, X.400, 
| X.500, go for the XML syntax.
| 
| If we create a dual data format spec, allowing both XML and the old 
| notation, we get both an easy notation (= popularity, deployment, 
| easier to understand for newbies) and the ability to extend the data 
| format later (XML notation only).
| 

OK, what's wrong with specifiying a dual data format now?
We could give receiver-side implementors a few months to
experiment with both formats and see which one they like
better.

If they like the XML syntax better, we can translate SPF to
XML trivially.

If they like the SPF syntax better, then we can tell
publishers that they will have to upgrade to XML only as
part of an SPFv2 effort, when the current SPF syntax runs
out of steam.

It just seems better to let people try it before deciding we
don't like it.

Dismissing it before even trying it seems unwise.

Prohibiting other people from doing what you personally
don't like has a long history of attracting controversy.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>