----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Rall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 5:23 PM
Subject: frozen specification
[snip]
> Right -- that the XML-RPC specifiction is frozen is a huge mistake.
> AFAIK, an HTTP/1.1 server is fully backwards compatible with HTTP/1.0,
> and offers many enhancments that would be directly applicable to any
> data tunnelled through it (such as XML-RPC). It makes zero sense to
> not support these enhancements when support can be added without
> breaking backwards compatibility. The server should speak 1.1 to
> clients that announce support for it, and 1.0 for clients that do not.
Dan,
I don't speak for Dave Winer but this is my understanding of the
situation: Dave (or his company) owns the trademark XML-RPC. Dave (or his
company) owns the copyright to the XML-RPC spec. Dave will let people use
the XML-RPC trademark if they implement the spec (this is logically a bit
difficult as the spec is unclear in many places and contradicts the XML spec
in at least one place). Dave will let people make changes to and build
extensions on the XML-RPC spec as long as they don't call it XML-RPC.
The reality is that many implementations make quiet extensions to the spec
(for example the Apache XML-RPC implementation handles the Latin-1 character
set, the spec (almost) requires ASCII). As long as they don't make a fuss
about this then Dave leaves them alone. Dave gets unhappy if people do high
profile things like implement <null/>.
Dave, like all of us, is not 100% consistent in the judgements he expresses.
However he has been remarkably consistent in maintaining the above position
for a couple of years now.
The Apache project has a high profile and a well deserved reputation for
respecting intellectual property. It appears to me that you should consider
carefully before adding extension to your XML-RPC implementation.
I do sympathise most deeply with your frustration, however;)
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
