vote on Proposed changes to PLASTIC for 1.0

Doug Tody dtody at
Fri May 4 09:23:08 PDT 2007

Hi Mark -

I looked at this, but it appears to concern only near-term changes
to PLASTIC, which is mostly a concern of the folks currently using
PLASTIC who will be impacted by these changes.  It is a good thing
to move PLASTIC more in the direction we think we are going longer
term, but my main concern (and probably a few others like me) is what
happens next.  All I suggest is that the roadmap might also include a
follow-on effort to address the more general applications messaging
problem (this can continue to retain support for a PLASTIC-like
capability), and that this go foward after PLASTIC 1.0 is out,
including both design and prototyping.

 	- Doug

On Fri, 4 May 2007, Mark Allen wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> Just a reminder to fill out the voting table for the proposed
> changes to PLASTIC.
> It is important to get your input there ASAP, and certainly
> before the Beijing Interop meeting.
> -Mark.
>> From John Taylor April :
>> Over the last year a number of changes have been suggested for PLASTIC, and 
>> the discussions on this list have thrown up a few more. Rising to Mike's 
>> challenge, I've collected them on this wiki page:
>> All of these changes can be made while retaining backwards compatibility 
>> with current PLASTIC apps, at least in the short term. If I've missed 
>> something important, please let me know.   Some  of the changes are lacking 
>> a sponsor: if you want to adopt one then go ahead, or I'll delete it if it 
>> gets no support.  I've taken the liberty of attributing some of the changes 
>> to Mark and Mike - feel free to remove your name if I've got it wrong.
>> So, cast your votes for the changes you want to see, and those you don't. 
>> Please do take part - it's important we get your views, *particularly* from 
>> people who intend to develop applications against
>>  this protocol.

More information about the apps mailing list