> Pick a language like C (not Java or C++). Something that clearly shows > precise intent. It can be a pseudo language but then we can't test it by > running it.
Python!) On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Perry Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think this is a good thing frankly. The W3C can't write. In fact, very > few people that publish "specs" can write. They seem to get all hung up on > lingo and end up with something that is full of holes and inconsistencies. > It is as if they have never written any code before. > > Can this be done as a very well documented and commented piece of code that > actually runs? I can understand code far quicker than I can understand > TechSpeak. > > Pick a language like C (not Java or C++). Something that clearly shows > precise intent. It can be a pseudo language but then we can't test it by > running it. > > After we're done, we'd not only have a spec but also something useful -- > working code. > > On May 29, 2011, at 7:09 AM, Thomas Wrobel wrote: > > > Well, thats the problem, I haven't either ;) > > I'm currently contributing a bit to the w3c POI standard, but its more > > general advice on whats needed/useful for AR then solid contributions. > > My experience is pretty low really, feeling my way. > > I also don't know anything really about protocols beyond my own bespoke > > stuff. > > > > regarding the name; I'm not sure thats such a good idea as its a bit > > confusable with the "wave federation protocol" itself no? The c/s > > standard might be similar in some ways but it wont be the same. > > > > > > > > On 29 May 2011 13:24, Adrian Cochrane <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 > >> > >> >
