[openi18n-im:01431] Re: IM_FILE_OPERATION specification

Hi,

Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 00:00:08 +0900
From: Hiroshi Miura <[email protected]>:
> 
> I want to define IM_FILE_OPERATIONS as for protocl v4 not v3.
> 
> I think a spec always delay from implementation.
> Because of stablity of spec is proofed by the implementation.

Yes, it's the problem...

> In fact, we have just finished implementing v3 protcol on every client framework
> at r12.4 w/o FILE_OPERATIONS. The latest one is Emacs client framework.
> # Thanks Taichi!!
> 
> It is saying that we can fix v3 protocol now and then we should call
> protocol as v4 after r12.4.
> 
> And then I want to propose changing filename as spec_v3.html from spec.html.
> I think we should refer old spec for backward compatibility for future.
> To do that, we should leave old spec as is.
> In same point of view, v4 draft spec may be spec_v4.html.

I think it's a good idea.  I've committed spec_v4.html, and
revert the change to spec.html and renamed it to spec_v3.html.
If someone find any problem in these changes, the names can be
changed again anyway.

Thanks,
-- 
kasha

> 
> The same thing is able to say for openI18N.org site.
> We publish v3 draft as up-to-date IIIMF protocol.
> It causes messing up contributers.
> 
> Kasha, How do you think about?
> 
> At Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:41:22 +0900,
> AShiZaWa KaZuNoRi wrote:
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I've updated doc/protocol/spec.html to include description of
> > IM_FILE_OPERATION message and related data types.  Please take a
> > look at this, and please suggest any improvements.
> > 
> > I'll start to enhance the current implementation (libiiimp.so)
> > with this definition.