Hm. Yeah. I think this is moving in the right direction. I maintain
the original three work (not cutting off, no unreasonable breaking,
and contact points) and make a good core, it's just a matter of
wording to get the specifics... Of course, what Martin suggests is
coherent with the first point of 'notice'. Perhaps the whole thing
really comes down to the API vendor giving notice before they cut off,
change, etc.
If we can boil these into 3 snappy, clear 'slogans', it'd be great. It
works on one slide, one page, etc. Really easy and clear. It gives us
a good 'constitution' to start pushing on. But as I said to Neil, the
hard part is the snappy slogan vs the practical detail. We just need
to work them into something that works without them losing their bite.
Remember, these are things that are bound to put providers out of
their way a little, we just need to get the balance right.
I admit we often have to break an old API, we migrate, we release etc,
but to do so we allow some migration time for developers - otherwise,
what's the point! If you can't version, you allow for migration...
Hence we talked about "reasonable". Maybe a big security issue means
you have to screw a load of developers, but if The Register just outed
your flaws all over the net, you've not a lot a choice! We can't
really complain about that, it's a complex game and we have to give a
fair chance when weird things happen. You can't cover all
conditions...
mjw