On 10/26/05, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Luke Arno wrote: > > >>-1. in the core of the Atom protocol we need to do whichever approach > >>can best ensure interoperability between implementation. > >> > >> > >> > > > >I take it you have made up your mind based on this > >false premise and are not interested in an honest > >and exhaustive discourse. > > > > > > > Seeking to ensure core interoperability is a false premise? That's > rather interesting. >
Straw man. The false premise is implied. My approach is not deleterious to interoperability. You have framed my argument as anti-interop. Do I hate kittens and bunnies too? > I haven't made up my mind about anything yet. All I want are some use > cases that support your position. Give me something I can chew on; > something you think will convince me that the way you think things > should be is the best solution given the alternatives that have already > been presented. I'm not even asking for proof that your solution is the > best possible solution. I believe that I have demonstrated on many past > occasions that I am extremely flexible on this stuff and have no problem > admitting when my stated position is proven to be the wrong approach > when there is evidence presented to that effect. In this case, no such > evidence has yet been provided. > You are asking for a negative proof. You should prove why the constraint you demand is needed. If not, leave the door open. http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/rest_arch_style.htm > Use cases. Describe for me a real world scenario that justifies your > argument. Once you do that, we'll have something real we can talk about. > Negative proof, again. - Luke
