ADC and the new clothes

[Pretorian]

Link: http://www.extatic.org/adc/adc_0.12_discussion.txt

Great suggestions. My only concern is how to deal with existing implementations?

[Pretorian]

Having thought some regarding the SUP; instead there should be a protocol version for every feature. That is;
SUP ('AD' | 'RM') feature / protocol (separator ('AD' | 'RM') feature / protocol)*
where protocol is (say) major.minor
That way we can completely control and know which version of all features everyone is using. To keep some backwards compatibilty, all features that are "1.0" can omit the protocol version.

[Dj_Offset]

Link: http://www.extatic.org/adc/adc_0.12_discussion.txt

Great suggestions. My only concern is how to deal with existing implementations?

My point exactly too, which is why i proposed it years ago when we broke the protocol after all...

[Pietry]

Pretorian: The official ADC specification means BASE + official extensions ( at least that's what I ment ). And what do you think about the versioning of the protocol ? ( 1.0.1 versus 1.1 )