On 9/14/11 12:49 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: > On Wed Sep 14 18:43:38 2011, Nicolas Vérité wrote: >> It's Microsoft! Quite a sign... but... >> >> Now, what we may see is cheating on the protocol, interop risks. > > I'd rather assume that any bugs in the implementation are just that - > unintentional errors - until we hear otherwise.
Hanlon's Razor and all that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor > I hope they do have bugs, mind. If they don't have any bugs in the > protocol implementation at all, that'll just make all of the rest of us > look really bad... > > Does anyone have any contacts with the development team? I have contacts. > Running some > interop tests to help them catch anything would be great. Unusual > implementations often highlight bugs in specification and existing > implementations, too. Perhaps it's time for another online interop test? I'll commit to helping more this time (last December I was swamped with work on the updated RFCs). Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
