OK, just realised that I wan't going to send the original email, I had another version which I then deleted. This was just me writing things as I was reading the spec, much of which I then thought about some more and realised there was a reason for some of it.
Oops. Oh well too late now. I'll try and re-phrase it tomorrow. A simple specification is really hard to write and I have much respect for Richard for even trying. My points below still stand. Cheers Dave T On 14 Mar 2011, at 19:58, David Tarrant wrote: > >> >> Thanks for the comments so far, they have been really useful. Any more >> comments (either in agreement of the spec, or in disagreement with it) would >> be appreciated. We hope to get the team of 7 project developers starting to >> implement this soon once the review has been finished. The implementation >> experience will no doubt then highlight the need for some more changes. > > Please bear in mind that I am one of those members and have been implementing > prototypes for some while. This has informed my comments greatly however the > current spec is highly confusing and a mash of many of the user requirements > which have been raised up to this point. > > I would therefore highly recommend that a community meeting between as many > available members is arranged to try and sort through the various use cases > and issues face to face before the spec becomes final. In it's current state > I can't see many clients, or servers being able to implement this within > their current limitations. > > There are many issues which I feel cannot be expressed fully and completely > in an email and what chances I have had to get together with Richard have > been fleeting and usually focussed on other issues. For this reason and many > others, my experiences have not been fed back properly. I hope that this can > be resolved in the near future as I feel this a hugely important step in > actually producing a usable and interoperable specification. > > I started revising the specification today to make it simpler and reflect my > own work. Perhaps this can be diff'd against the published specification and > discussed at such a meeting. > > I hope that time limitations are not forcing the project to complete quickly > at this point as this is a vital stage to try and get right. > > I am willing to travel somewhere soon if such a meeting can be arranged to > discuss this specification and work through the sticking points. > > Cheers > > Dave T > > >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> Stuart Lewis >> ------------ >> SWORD Community Manager >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Colocation vs. Managed Hosting >> A question and answer guide to determining the best fit >> for your organization - today and in the future. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d >> _______________________________________________ >> Sword-app-techadvisorypanel mailing list >> Sword-app-techadvisorypanel@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sword-app-techadvisorypanel > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Colocation vs. Managed Hosting > A question and answer guide to determining the best fit > for your organization - today and in the future. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d > _______________________________________________ > Sword-app-techadvisorypanel mailing list > Sword-app-techadvisorypanel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sword-app-techadvisorypanel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Colocation vs. Managed Hosting A question and answer guide to determining the best fit for your organization - today and in the future. http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d _______________________________________________ Sword-app-techadvisorypanel mailing list Sword-app-techadvisorypanel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sword-app-techadvisorypanel
