On Tue Apr 28 03:12:27 2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Also, I think the examples should still have the sequence numbers
> (which is I believe preferred implementation). Use of hashes can
be
> noted in implementation notes.
I disagree. The spec says that the version ID is opaque. If the
examples
include only version IDs that are *not* opaque, developers will
ignore
the text and focus only on the examples.
I think he's right - it's impossible to order two hashes, so "real"
implementations - those capable of producing intermediate pushes -
are going to use some form of "ver" with strict ordering properties,
and the simplest way to demonstrate this is with a strictly
increasing integer sequence, which leaves the examples clear (for
instance, in the point 3 explanatory text of example 3)
Having other examples which use a hash is also useful, for the
minimal implementation guidelines.
FWIW, I'd also suggest adding some text guiding implementors, and in
particular reinstating some text warning against using timestamps.
I'll write a section for you, possibly even today.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email protected] - xmpp:[email protected]
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
