VOEvent working draft published: version, param

[Rob Seaman]

> Alasdair Allan wrote:
>
>> Rob Seaman wrote:
>>
>>> It is precisely the highly experienced "writers of transmitting  
>>> server software and receiving applications" who I expect would be  
>>> least receptive at this point of backpedaling toward a VOEvent  
>>> specification that requires an explicit new extension schema be  
>>> written for each instrument supported.
>>
>> Yup, the current standard "as is" is fairly slim line, adding  
>> something like new extension schema on a per instrument basis  
>> would be a total nightmare. No way...
>
> Actually lets be blunt. I would be totally unable to justify  
> lending my support to such as standard.

This may have already been demonstrated to be a moot question several  
times over - i.e., it ain't gonna happen and it appears like it  
doesn't have to in the first place because standard XML can already  
do what Tony wants, but I seriously doubt anybody building example  
software would ever choose to do it that way anyway - but there is  
another layer of mootness here that has yet to be addressed.  Namely,  
Rick has already done more-or-less exactly what Tony suggests via RTML.

Rob