On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 02:51:13 +0100, Pascal Haakmat wrote:
But it is not solving the problems:
1. The PortName still needs to describe the possible values for non
RDF-capable hosts.
Any host that cares to that extent would also benefit from the other
features of RDF.
2. The host still needs to know what part of the
PortName it may
suppress.
No, because its always been my intention to remove the cruft form the end
us port names when there was an alternative.
My proposal loses us nothing: because plugin authors
need to use the
PortName field to describe port values _anyway_ (to aid non
RDF-capable hosts) it makes sense to agree on a best way to do it.
I disagree, its an ugly hack, and I didn't want to do it in the first
place, there just wasn't much choice originally, and I got into the habit.
People using eg. command line hosts could read the docs.
- Steve