wayland implementation conformance

[Tiago Vignatti]

Hi,

I hijacked this comment which Kristian made in the other email thread; 
my comments are inline.

On 01/24/2011 09:30 PM, ext Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
 >
 > Once of the things that X got right was the extension model.  Wayland
 > takes it one step further by making everything an extension: the only
 > thing that's fixed in the Wayland protocol is an interface for
 > discovering other interfaces.  If it turns out that we need to update
 > the input model, we have versioning built in for incremental updates,
 > and we can add an entire new model if we need to start from scratch.

So what defines exactly a Wayland implementation which is conformant 
with the protocol then?

Let's say I don't care about drm_interface and my implementation works 
okay without it. Does my software is called Wayland then? Nevertheless, 
in this case, I won't be able to connect the same clients from such 
implementation on some other Wayland server that relies on DRM. So if we 
target interoperability between clients and server, then I guess we will 
want to define hardly a few interfaces.

                    Tiago