On 14-May-09, at 9:32 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 5/14/09 10:29 AM, Curtis King wrote:
On 13-May-09, at 4:40 PM, Florian Zeitz wrote:
I'm also not really sure why anyone might ever want to use hashes.
+1
The Google Talk guys I talked with said they would do hashes. I'd like
to see broader adoption, so I see no reason to discourage the hash
approach. Besides, this is all out in implementation land
I think this naive on our part. By "our" I mean people who write,
influence, edit, and comment on standards. From my experience this is
where the most interoperability issues arise from, "it's
implementation defined".
-- the only
thing that the spec needs to say is "the identifier is opaque to the
client".
How many times have seen this ignored and will again in the future?
The more we can make explicit the better and I find it also opens the
door for more creative solutions.
The question this long discussion brings to mind is, "Is it really
stupid developers at fault or us for not accepting how people think
when implementing a spec?".
ck
