Date:Fri, 1 Jul 2005 15:16:09 -0400
From:Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| In what way would that differ from Specification Required?
See below.
| No. That one (Specification Required) explicitly states that the
| document
The problem is that the IETF, and the IESG in particular, sees a protocol,
sees it is planned to be used with internet related protocols, and so
perhaps on some part of the internet, and decides that's ours, we must
be the ones to decide whether that is any good or not, now how do we force
that
Hi David,
Framebuffer-level protocols can be viewed as a special case
of graphics-level
protocols where the drawing commands are restricted to
bitblt-like commands.
Yes, it is possible to have a graphics-level protocol with a restricted
functionality that is matching that of
Hi Vlad others
Just adding some opinions on this from my side, since I found this idea
interesting:
1. Even though today's clients are powerful enough to handle the widgets and
adaptation, maybe on the server side, certain computations and algos could
be clubbed to reduce the load on the pda's
Hi Harald,
I have to recognise that the name choice for this effort was not entirely
appropriate as it drags the spotlight on the user interface while leaving the
remoting unfairly in the shadows.
- What expertise do you see that the IETF has (and other
groups do not
have) that makes it
Hi. I have attempted to review this draft. I do not believe this
document is suitable for publication.
First, the writing quality is a serious obstacle to understanding the
document. Ultimately I'm still not sure what the document was trying
to require.
The document presumes a single model
