> Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 00:38:09 +0100
> From: Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
> > We need to have 1.1 in place, along with implementations or demos,
> > in order to establish credibility with the metasearch folks.
> 1.1 in place? Meaning that their requirements would be delayed
> until 1.2 or 2.0 (or whatever comes after 1.1)?
I don't think that at this stage the metasearch people's contribution
can be described as a "requirement". From Seb's report, it seems
they've not got that far. I think it would be very silly of us to
postpone 1.1 while we wait for a brand new community to get itself
into gear and start figuring out what it wants to do!
> We have implementations of 1.0.
That's kind of true, but my impression from list has been that
interoperability between the various 1.0 implementatons is very poor.
Looks to me like what SRW really needs is a formal interoperability
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "More means worse" -- Kingsley Amis.
Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at