On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, John Taylor wrote:
> In fact, we already are: people have been defining new PLASTIC
> messages and finding new uses for the system even as we've been
> discussing its "successor". It would be helpful to formalise this
> though.
>
> What are the disadvantages of the twin track approach?
> a) Extra work - we end up doing things twice.
> b) App developers might not adopt the preliminary spec, but will wait
> for the final one.
You forget "c) Developers may not see a need to move to the 'GMA' and we end up with competing specs". I think this is the most likely outcome and only turns the useful debate we're having now into a pissing contest about who's messaging system is better.
While I think it is primarily a distraction at this point, I must admit I'd be curious to see what a 'cleaned-up plastic' would look like. This would need to address the points raised so far and incloude a roadmap to "transition" to the new system, if it only widens the gap it won't help things much. Perhaps a consensus of what this looks like reached on the plastics-dev list and put forward as an alternative plan??
> If we started now, we could get a working draft out not long after
> the May interop.
The premise with this and similar statements is that we have *nothing* and this point and so time is critical, it usually comes in a message that likewise says we already have plastic so why move on. Calling a/the new system 'Grand' and 'extensive' certainly helps make it seem more trouble than I think we're really talking about, but I put myself in John's 'perfect design' camp not because I crave complexity, but because plastic does not satisfy MY requirements (actual as well as what I believe is needed for apps other than simple tools) for a messaging system. If a plastic roadmap can't fix that, I guess I'll never see the charm in it.
-Mike Received on 2007-04-17Z07:25:37