FWIW, I removed the term "reference implemenation" from the proposal to properly reflect the nature of the implementation.
Ugo Cei wrote: > > at > On May 23, 2006, at 4:53 PM, Walter Underwood wrote: > >> The goal is a reference implementation. The goal is to be exactly >> correct. >> Being in a particular language, or even being fast enough to be usable, >> is beside the point. In particular, a reference implementation should >> always choose code readability over speed. >> >> If the goal is to have a standard, free implementation that everyone >> uses, >> that is different from a reference implementation and the goals should >> say that. > > Yes, sorry, I wasn't considering it from this angle. > > By the way, someone commented on my blog that: > > "ARI (or whatever it will be called) will *NOT* be a reference > implementation. According to Roy F, the IETF doesn’t allow reference > implementations, just implementations" > > <http://agylen.com/2006/05/23/atom-reference-implementation/#comments> > > Ugo > > > > --Ugo Cei > Blog: http://agylen.com/ > Open Source Zone: http://oszone.org/ > Evil or Not?: http://evilornot.info/ > Company: http://www.sourcesense.com/ > > > >
