> Here's my understanding so far:the proposals for 1.2 and 2.0 were created at the same time, so 2.0
> * 1.1: abandoned
isn't really a revised version of 1.2.
> (I'm surprised that 2.0 is not BC with 1.0,It can't, because it adds new functionality.
> though I believe thatyes, it can, and this fact is also mentioned in the "2.0 WD"
> a well-written server could use the Request to determine which
> specification to follow.)
> Next, I saw a call to approve 1.2RC1/2.0 at the end of February, butThe consensus is, that the current 2.0 WD is good, and no further
> there's no clear indication in the archives as to what the consensus
> was, if any. Could somebody clarify?
modifications to the WD are necessary.
I think we could approve it -- but there wasn't anyone here who pushed
the approval ;).
> Next, I see a document for "JSON Schema Service Descriptor", but it isyes, it was discussed to use it for system.describe.
> unclear if this is the format to use for system.describe
but it has not yet been decided, how all the "system.*" should look like.
> Finally, should I even consider anything other than 1.0 at this time?1.0 is the only "valid" specification at the moment.
but I personally think that there won't be any modifications to the 2.0WD,
so, I would suggest to implement 1.0, and extend it as soon as 2.0 is
> My inclination is not to, but to consider some forward compatibilityremember that HTTP has *nothing* to do with JSON-RPC. JSON-RPC and the
> issues such as sending HTTP 204 responses for notifications,
used transport are completely independent.
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.