Daniel Stenberg wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, David Hall wrote:
Those who value core size over eye-candy would have a nice, clean and
simple WPS interface very similar to today (with arguably less
cruft), while those who want massive eye-candy WPSs would have a way
to implement them without interfering with the core functions.
Yes, but how is my suggestion not satisfying exactly what you're
saying? In fact, so does Jdgordon's too, we just have two different
approaches for it.
(Clarification for everyone else, Daniel set me straight in IRC.)
After rereading the thread a couple of more times I see now where I was
mistaking your opposition to _extending_ the WPS through a plugin to
opposition for a WPS plugin in general.
