On 7/7/2011 4:42 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 08/07/11 00:21, Mike Jones wrote:
There are other requirements not met by CMS for many of our use cases. For
instance, having a compact representation and having a URL-safe implementation.
I'm fine with CMS being *one* of the input documents, but I believe it's too strong a
statement to say that we've decided up-front that the goal is to "JSONize CMS"
or to have the charter reflect that narrowing of the mission.
Can you say what is not in CMS that might be needed here?
I find it hard to think of anything myself, but if there
are things, (specific features, that is) that'd be good
to know.
Stephen,
From the standpoint of argumentation process, your question is literally out of
order. That is, out of sequence.
It calls for criticizing details that have not been stated.
The first requirement is for proponents to provide much more explicit details
about what is being proposed in the use of CMS. After that, critics can point
to missing details or details that they believe should not apply here, or
alternatives with better details, or...
Richard's response is along the lines of what is first needed, but there needs
to be agreement on whatever is meant.
I think there should be some explicit debate about the choices for conceptual,
semantic, syntactic, software, whatever highest point of departure that will be
used. There are choices and the differences are meaningful.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
woes mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes
