Re: [emergency] Groups - EDIT of emergency-CAPv-1.1

[Kon Wilms <kon@datacast.biz>]

On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 21:56 -0500, Art Botterell wrote:
> At 2:31 PM -0800 3/7/05, Kon Wilms wrote:
> >I've asked a number of times in this thread for clarification as to why
> >such a method would not be a good idea - all I've received has been what
> >seems like an unwillingness to listen.
> 
> Please don't confuse not agreeing with not listening.  The TC isn't 

You don't have to agree, but you do have to give me a good answer why
you think it won't work and/or is a bad idea. I have yet to see even
one, even after I have listed both advantages and disadvantages to this
approach. 'Things will not interoperate' doesn't qualify as a valid
answer (or excuse).

> obliged to accept a change just because someone suggests it.  If you 
> want a change, it's up to you to persuade the TC that it's a good 
> idea.

This is right up there with accusing me of using this to push an
implementation issue to the standards level. What's up with this?

> >However, with a lookup table in place people like Dave would be able to
> >make use of their CBRN category immediately without being out of spec.
> 
> We aren't trying to make it easy to add new categories... in fact, 
> we're trying to make it hard.  Our goal is interoperability, which 
> wouldn't be served by letting some systems adopt random categories 
> that others won't understand.

I'm constantly amazed at how the concept of lookup table usage is
equated to allowing people to insert random categories into their
messages and creating some sort of interop disaster. Please stop the
FUD.

> CAP isn't meant to be everything to everyone... it's meant to be the 
> SAME thing to everyone.

Same as above.

> If Dave DIDN'T feel he needed to interoperate he could just make up 
> his own XML format and not bother constraining himself to the CAP 
> spec.  But the last thing we'd want would be messages floating around 
> that claimed to be CAP, but actually were non-interoperable variants.

Same as above.

The theme here seems to be that of portraying the usage of a lookup
table to be something that would be a source of all manner of 'very bad
things', none of which are based in fact.

Please explain to me how a fixed lookup table for categories would allow
for random category insertion. 

I have to ask - are you intentionally muddying the water because you
don't like this proposal, or is there a solid technical reason for this
being a bad approach to solving this problem?

Cheers
Kon