[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
re: another nit
>>Cords are not, strictly speaking, part of MCP 2.1, and compliant
>>implementations are not required to support them.
> of course, they ARE a part of mcp 2.1, or they wouldn't be in the spec
> and they wouldn't be called mcp-cord. sure, they're an OPTIONAL part,
> but they're still there.
> any objections to this change?
fwiw, i don't object; i don't think this change would alter the
semantics of the spec. what i was after with this statement _was_
simply that cords are an optional part of the spec.
on the other hand, it raises an interesting question about the use of
the mcp- prefix. the spec says this:
<LI>Package names beginning with the identifier <SAMP>mcp</SAMP> are
reserved for packages required or recommended in this and future
versions of the MCP specification.
does this mean we'll be updating the specification proper if we
recommend new packages? i guess so. just curious what the feeling on
this is. i'm not _totally_ averse to adding new subsections to S3,
but we don't want to be adding stuff to a spec that's finalised.
should we have another name hierarchy reserved to the spec authors for
recommended packages not in the spec itself?
- another nit
- From: Erik Ostrom <firstname.lastname@example.org>