> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 15:53:56 +0100
> From: Rob Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
> On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 00:59 +0200, Theo van Veen wrote:
>> Perhaps it makes sense to have a list of "unregistered" or
>> "unapproved" extensions on the same page that lists the registered
> To clarify: if someone has gone to the trouble of writing up the
> extension and telling us about it then it *is* registered. We
> explicitly don't make any 'approval' of extensions that are
> registered, but we will of course try to help anyone who is having
> difficulty to create the best extension so that others will feel
> confident in using it as well.
>> I agree with Peter that the lack of such an extension can be a
>> showstopper and I agree with Ralph and and Rob that too much
>> complexity can be a showstopper as well. Therefore we need to find
>> the right balance between specifying what is part of the standard
>> and publishing what is being used by individual implementors.
> As in all cases, we should, in my opinion, draw up a list of the
> functionality which is required but not present in the base
> protocol. Then come to some agreement on how that should be
> expressed as an extension. If there is interest in the future once
> it has been implemented and tested as an extension, it can be
> migrated into the protocol proper.
Also agreed. For the record, I withdraw my assertion that
multi-database support should be a core part of SRW/U, and instead
agree that it should be couched as a rigorously defined extension.
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "The tale grew in the telling" -- Opening words of
J. R. R. Tolkein's foreword to _The Lord of the Rings_.
Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film, TV and radio