[occi-wg] On repainting the bikeshed at the 11th hour...

[Benjamin Black]

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Sam Johnston <samj at samj.net> wrote:

> Ben,
>
> An unimplementable specification is as useless as teats on a bull... I
> do think it's important that we bear the developers in mind where
> possible as if it's easy to develop for it's more likely to be used
> extensively.


I agree, yet don't understand how it applies to anything I've said.  Are you
really suggesting that using JSON would result in a specification that is
"unimplementable"?


> I'm going to assume you know what atom looks like up close and
> personal as I'm confined to an iPhone for now so my demoing ability is
> limited... if we leave the content element well alone then it is no
> more complicated than any XML based domain specific language we would
> create, especially if we keep it flat and/or limit ourselves to what
> is possible in text and json.


> Further, these alternative transforms need be nothing more than
> convenience formats for writing shell scripts and web interfaces...


And we end up right back in the space I described in an earlier email:
either we force all implementations to implement all formats or we guarantee
the production of incompatible, fully compliant implementations.  Riding the
fence just produces a sore bottom.  Make a choice.


>
> and by providing ready made transforms they need be no more work for
> implementors. If an implementor wants to render direct to PDF for
> reporting then so be it. If they choose not to provide this extra
> functionality then let the market decide. So long as we focus on one
> primary format we're fine.
>
> Sam
>

"If we don't do all the complex stuff for which XML-based systems are
notorious, we'll be fine".  There is a first time for everything.  I'm not
going to hold my breath, though.


Ben
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20090507/1063569e/attachment.html