[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] Unique Message Identifiers in CAP
At 4:59 PM -0500 3/26/04, R. Allen Wyke wrote: >With all due respect, there is a dimension to building systems that >support standards, and therefore building standards that can be >supported, that not everyone has experience with nor are they >expected to. With equal respect, I'm not sure we all know enough about each others' experiences for any of us to claim superior standing on that basis. >An interface is built, however it is impossible to connect with >other systems in a standard (official) way as that means of >connection has not been defined. Well, as mentioned earlier, isn't that really an Infrastructure issue? Anyway, seems like DMIS is fairly "official"... unless what we really mean by that is "our own"... and quite a number of folks have managed to connect successfully to that. Have you tried it? > Your ethical responsibility as a standards developer is to put a >usable standard out there for people to implement, and then seek to >improve it. Guess I'm not clear on what your criterion for "usable" is. A number of folks are using the CAP format right now... several of them daily and in significant volume. Again, I think what you're talking about isn't the CAP messaging format but some other Infrastructure standard that we've yet to devise. Perhaps eventually it could all be rolled together into something that came closer to your preferred definition of "protocol", but we'll have to get the missing bits before that becomes an option. - Art
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]