SAMP RFC changes

[Juan de Dios Santander Vela]

El 20/01/2009, a las 14:48, Mark Taylor escribió:

> Hi Juan,
>
> yes, like you say, this kind of extensibility is explicitly encouraged
> in MType parameter sets and at other places within SAMP.
> Section 5.2 says:
>
>   "The parameters and return values associated with each MType form
>    extensible vocabularies as explained in Section 2.6, except that
>    there is no reserved "samp." namespace."
>
> and Section 2.6 contains the text:
>
>   "The general rule is that hubs and clients which encounter keys
>    which they do not understand should ignore them, propagating them  
> to
>    downstream consumers if appropriate. As far as possible, where  
> new keys
>    are introduced they should be such that applications which ignore  
> them
>    will continue to behave in a sensible way."
>
> which I think answers your query - do you agree?

Completely!

> I admit that this clarification is easy to miss (it took me a few  
> minutes
> grepping the LaTeX to find it, and I knew it was there...).  I think  
> that
> may be unavoidable given the length of the document and what it's  
> trying
> to cover, but if you've got a suggestion for how it could be made more
> obvious, fire away.


In fact, I wrote this message because I was going to write in an  
article something like: "optional parameters MAY be discarded by  
applications not implementing them, as stated in the SAMP Proposed  
Recommendation", but I was not able to find exactly that information.

Perhaps a good place to remember this thing is the page with the wiki  
the Application Domain MTypes?

-- 
Juan de Dios Santander Vela
Diplomado en CC. Físicas, Ingeniero en Electrónica
Doctorando en Tecnologías Multimedia
Becario Predoctoral del Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía

Hellen Keller: Cuando una puerta a la felicidad se cierra, otra se  
abre;  pero a veces nos quedamos tanto tiempo frente a la puerta  
cerrada que no vemos la que se nos ha abierto.