On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 3:18 AM, Torben Weis <[email protected]> wrote: > However, it is a pity that the spec is not edited in a wiki-style, because > the contribution model does not lend itself to community contributions. As a > result, the comments made on this list and the errors+solutions detected > while implementing the spec are likely not to find their way in the specs > and whitepapers.
The federation protocol draft spec has been in the repository at code.google.com for a long time, and the whitepapers have also moved there recently, e.g. http://code.google.com/p/wave-protocol/source/browse/#hg/whitepapers/operational-transform The barrier for contributing to this is higher than it would be with a wiki; but for specifications and similar documents, this is probably a good thing. Please send your contributions through the usual code review channels. We would like to see the errors that you found fixed. Oh, and "retain" is not an operation, it's an operation component :) Specifying an absolute position/range for each component would indeed be an alternative. The way we defined our operation components forces each operation to traverse the document exactly once, from left to right, which leads to more efficient algorithms for transform and compose. Hope this helps, Christian. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave Protocol" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en.
