On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 02:51:13 +0100, Pascal Haakmat wrote: > But it is not solving the problems: > > 1. The PortName still needs to describe the possible values for non > RDF-capable hosts.
Any host that cares to that extent would also benefit from the other features of RDF. > 2. The host still needs to know what part of the PortName it may > suppress. No, because its always been my intention to remove the cruft form the end us port names when there was an alternative. > My proposal loses us nothing: because plugin authors need to use the > PortName field to describe port values _anyway_ (to aid non > RDF-capable hosts) it makes sense to agree on a best way to do it. I disagree, its an ugly hack, and I didn't want to do it in the first place, there just wasn't much choice originally, and I got into the habit. People using eg. command line hosts could read the docs. - Steve
