Oh, and Thomas Wrobel, I'd appreciate your help. I've never written a real standard before.
How about dropping the "Con". "The Federation", less Firefly more Wave. -- Adrian Cochrane [email protected] On Sun, 29 May 2011 04:05 -0700, "Adrian Cochrane" <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, I just thought that if the name Wave came from Firefly, so should > it's concertium. > > To be clear, I'd take the task of reworking the standards by placing my > current plans online and taking all the criticism I can. > > As for using the original standards, it's just because then I wasn't > reworking the standards. As for Federation, I'd like that to be simalor > to the current standard (since it's the architecture of PyOfWave). > -- > Adrian Cochrane > [email protected] > > > On Sun, 29 May 2011 12:54 +0200, "Thomas Wrobel" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Like call it Moya then, from Farscape ;) > > (hay, it did last longer....) > > > > On 29 May 2011 12:52, Paul Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > face palm. more firefly references...ominous :/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Adrian Cochrane <[email protected]> > > > To: [email protected] > > > Sent: Sun, 29 May, 2011 9:58:12 > > > Subject: protocols > > > > > > avid Hearnden <[email protected]> Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:36 AM > > >> Reply-To: [email protected], [email protected] > > >> To: wave-dev <[email protected]> > > >> There is a technical roadmap (i.e., rich design docs etc, published > > >> somewhere on the site - let me know if you can't find them) for a new > > >> protocol that overcomes many of the issues with the current one, and > > >> works > > >> much better with more advanced features (e.g. diff-on-open). I don't > > >> think > > >> it's a moving target - the doc has been ready for a few months, and I > > >> don't > > >> think anyone has significant changes to it in mind. However, AFAIK, > > >> nobody > > >> who's available has signed up to do the work, so there is no timeline for > > >> it. I was keen to get into it a few months back, and Alex North was too, > > >> but both our availabilities have significantly diminished. It's probably > > >> about 2-3 weeks of work for someone to see it through end to end though. > > >> It > > >> was previously blocked by a few things that have now been implemented. > > > > > >> I would strongly encourage not building too much on the current protocol, > > >> since it has a number of known limitations. The new protocol is simpler > > >> and > > >> achieves a better separation of functionality. If there are a few people > > >> (PyOfWave?) with the will and a bit of time, then it is very achievable > > >> to > > >> get it rolled out. > > > > > >> -Dave > > > > > > I will be proud to go over it, but (because I want to be liberal) I'd > > > first ask to start > > > with a forum or mailing list which I'd refer to as 'The Confederate' > > > after Firefly T.V. > > > series which gave Wave it's name. I've already exchanged some messages > > > with josephg on GitHub on > > > the shareJS Wave project on this. > > > > > > What I planned to work with, if I didn't get proper standardization, is > > > the extended original > > > standards (to make up for some lacking features I say), a non-HTTP > > > alternative to Simple Data > > > Protocol, an fully designed Gadget API in a derivative of CoffeeScript > > > (to simplify offline clients), > > > and a URL scheme to serve for embedding, WaveThis, and a alias query for > > > groups. > > > > > > I'll get started on it provided that I am provided with the necessary > > > information on how to do > > > it. However on my project, I've got some work on PyOfWave to finish. > > > -- > > > [email protected] > > > > > > -- > > > http://www.fastmail.fm - Email service worth paying for. Try it for free > > > > -- > http://www.fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin > -- http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users: http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html
