[tap-l] JSON TAP Diagnostics?

[Michael G Schwern]

Ovid wrote:
> --- On Tue, 19/8/08, Michael G Schwern <schwern at pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>> I think we should start the process by specifying TAP
>> version 12 aka core TAP.
>>  The stuff we all agree on and is in wide use.  Extension
>> discussion should be
>> orthogonal so as not to stall the standardization process.
> 
> That's the stance I took in Copenhagen last week.  I was unanimously voted down.

Seeing as how something as simple as key prefixes derailed the process last
time, we're doomed.

What was the argument against?


> Pushing this to the IETF list is good as it hopefully gives TAP a bit more Kredibility (like Kwalitee),
> and I suspect is more likely to attract people outside of the Perl
community.  We need that.

Sorry, I don't understand how this relates.  To be clear, I wasn't suggesting
not running things through the IETF.  Just separating the "core TAP" IETF spec
process from the TAP extension process.


-- 
On error resume stupid