Re: SDshare push
Lars Marius Garshol <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.xtm.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
* Lars Heuer > > I tend to disagree, the alternative is using APP. That would certainly be an alternative, but I've now written up the spec, implemented it, tested the implementation, and am waiting for the customer to test it on their site. So switching to APP, which I in any case don't want to do, is a bit late now. If you want to see a push version of SDshare based on APP it seems that you'll have to write the spec yourself. > I am still wondering why the proposal invents something new while the > rest of the Atom family (since SDShare made the decision to depend on > Atom) is more or less happy with the existing de-facto standards. I've given my rationale for this many times, and I can't really see any point in doing it again. You disagree for what are entirely reasonable and consistent reasons, and that's fine by me. I wanted something that works in a particular scenario, and now I have it. As far as I'm concerned, that's mission accomplished. --Lars M. http://www.garshol.priv.no/tmphoto/ http://www.garshol.priv.no/blog/