Fergal Daly writes: > On 12/03/07, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Monday 12 March 2007 10:53, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > > > > > Making "either the consumer talks to the producer and the > > > producer has to implement some complex logic, or the producer > > > sticks to the plainest TAP possible" a requirement would just > > > lead to most ad-hoc implementations of producers being forever > > > stuck with producing the plainest TAP possible. > > > > +1, has the historical support in the example of, oh, just about every > > standard Internet protocol ever devised. > > What? > > GET / HTTP/1.1 > > there it is right there, the consumer saying "I'd like to speak this > version, can you handle it?"
No it isn't. It's the instigator of the converstation saything "I am going to speak version 1.1; deal with it". Which seems the right thing to do with Tap as well. Each Tap stream merely needs to be identified by the number a version with which it is compatible (ideally the lowest such version, but it'll still work even if not). Then something reading that stream knows that if it supports the version number in question it will be able to understand the stream, and that otherwise it should give up. Smylers
