On 3 January 2013 17:50, Mikael Nordfeldth
<address@hidden> wrote:
On tor 3 jan 2013 17:09:00, hellekin (GNU Consensus) <
address@hidden> wrote:
> On 01/03/2013 08:44 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> *** Mikael, I hope this misunderstanding can be cleared when the Tent
> people join the conversation. As far as I can tell, they thought the
> lack of privacy in OStatus' scope was enough of a reason to take another
> approach. I can't blame them for that choice.
I was thinking more of them mapping out a unique list of activity definitions rather than extending existing definitions, which will inevitably cause confusion when writing software to bridge networks of Tent/everything else.
However I believe they are still very early in their work and have a lot of possibility to change some of the "not invented here" philosophy.
Mikael, I think it would be helpful is you did not continue with such an accusatory tone. Tent is not an NIH system, they have a well designed JSON framework. There have been data standards for this kind of thing for at least 12 years and everything has constantly evolved. Both tent and your personal preferences are slightly unorthodox, wrt to the main stream, or the standards world, but no one should be criticized for trying to innovate. As it happens tent have done a great job, imho.