On 06/03/2010 04:37 PM, Matt Massie wrote:
I think it's misleading to see the spec as a single source of truth. There are portions of the spec which are much more set in stone (e.g. the binary serialization format) than others (e.g. lightweight RPC) are more a work in progress. It would be good to make that clearer to future implementors and users. I think AEPs should have a status assigned to them similar to RFCs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments#Status.
The spec is already versioned. We could add a status to each section of the spec if we like. But I don't see how status is an argument against a having a specification document.
The last incompatible change made to the spec were the file format changes in February, prior to any known adoption of the file format. Prior to that, RPC was last changed incompatibly in October, also prior to any known adoption of RPC. I don't think we should add things to the spec until we are fairly confident they are stable. And once something is in use, we should work hard to never change it incompatibly.
Doug
