I was wondering if there's a clear consensus on command sets. What I mean by that is, has everyone bought in on the idea of having named command sets that are accepted or rejected during an initial command negotiation? If it's felt to be not a good idea, fine; I feel that both Don and I have said our piece. However, if you like it, then I have some comments on the draft.
Regards, Alan
I think it's a good idea to have a mechanism for extensions which is smart enough to allow a standard "not implemented" response.
Alan wrote:
I was wondering if there's a clear consensus on command sets. What I mean by that is, has everyone bought in on the idea of having named command sets that are accepted or rejected during an initial command negotiation?
Initial command negotiation?
If it's felt to be not a good idea, fine; I feel that both Don and I have said our piece. However, if you like it, then I have some comments on the draft.
I think it will be necessary to partition the command set into a number of subsets for different application areas. While tournament and server play has about the same needs, regression testing and gui applications are quite different. To take the popular example of undo this is marginally important in the first case, mostly pointless in the second case, and quite important in the last case.
/Gunnar