"John Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Daniel Rall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> 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. > > 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.
Right, I read this last time you posted it too. ;-) (And thanks for that, I was not aware of the information at the time or your original post.) > 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/>. I have no personal interest in null. I'm interested in a RPC server with reasonable performance when handling large quantities of data. > 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. My last message never indicated I was going to do this with the Apache implementation. However, I may end up modifying (at least) the server code to support HTTP/1.1 in addition to supporting the primitive XML-RPC specification (togglable). I will definitely contribute any such changes back to the ASF, inclusion of which will be dealt with as per the Jakarta decision guidelines <http://jakarta.apache.org/site/decisions.html>. For a quick HTTP/1.1 start, the bundled proxy Servlet would plug into Tomcat for Chunk Transfer Coding support (I know that Catalina has full support for this). > I do sympathise most deeply with your frustration, however;) Thanks John. - Dan