No subject

specification should have been approved as a fd.o standard.

The other point of discussion, is obviously, the process of standarizing
specifications in fd.o.


Regards,
Rafael Fern=C3=A1ndez L=C3=B3pez.

--0016e6d646edb1a980046fa00aeb
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi all,<br><br>It seems I got pretty late to this discussion because of vac=
ation time... However I&#39;d like to throw my 2 cents:<br><br>Cornelius, t=
he draft looks really great from my POV.<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">
2009/7/9 Rodney Dawes <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:dobey.pwns at gm=
ail.com">dobey.pwns at gmail.com</a>&gt;</span><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_=
quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt =
0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I generally disagree with the idea that in order to use the<br>
org.freedesktop namespace for DBus interfaces, you must first gain<br>
acceptance through having multiple desktops use your interface.</blockquote=
><div><br>This is absolutely necessary. Since there is no interconnection b=
etween desktop, say desktop A and desktop B are both developing a technolog=
y which is for the same purpose. It makes sense that they will have the sam=
e service name in the DBus namespace. You have created a conflict, because =
A would use org.freedesktop.Technology and desktop B would use org.freedesk=
top.Technology, with the services not even matching.<br>
<br>From my point of view, for using org.freedesktop namespace, the specifi=
cation should have been approved as a fd.o standard.<br><br>The other point=
 of discussion, is obviously, the process of standarizing specifications in=
 fd.o.<br>
<br><br>Regards,<br>Rafael Fern=C3=A1ndez L=C3=B3pez.<br></div></div>

--0016e6d646edb1a980046fa00aeb--