Published on: 2011-12-21T09:27:05+00:00
In December 2011, Amir Taaki proposed a hierarchical method for mapping browser user agents to facilitate scanning of all browsers using WebKit. He argued that developers want to adhere to standards but face challenges due to inflexibility and ambiguity. This method allows clients to provide all available information without the need to exclude any details. Dr. Andy Parkins provided his contact information and signature at the end of the message.Luke-Jr and Amir Taaki discussed the acceptance of bitcoin URI in the standard. Amir had contacted IANA previously and had to read five extensive documents as a requirement, but he did not end up writing the RFC. On the other hand, Luke also reached out to IANA but did not receive a response. Luke requested that whoever Amir spoke with should get in touch with him, emphasizing the importance of compliance with the spec on the wiki, especially regarding scalability and avoidance of BTC unit specificity.The context delves into Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs) and their role in establishing a stable programming environment and promoting an accepted standard while creating a level playing field for smaller groups. The author acknowledges the potential challenges posed by excessive rules and bureaucracy. The discussion revolves around BIP_0014, which specifies software stacks rather than end applications. The author highlights the potential violation of this specification by Gavin's recent commit, which utilizes the same version string for both the GUI interface and the daemon mode. There is ambiguity in interpreting the BIP language, particularly regarding what is permitted, encouraged, or required. To address this, the author recommends utilizing the RFC2119 keywords from https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt to clarify expectations and mitigate confusion. The author advises future BIP contributors to consult this RFC for valuable suggestions. Additionally, the author proposes splitting bitcoin-qt into two parts and draws inspiration from Mozilla Firefox's application suite as a useful approach.A disagreement has arisen between Gavin and Luke-JR regarding the recent commit that uses the same version string for both the GUI interface and the daemon mode. Luke considers this a violation of BIP_0014 and an error on Gavin's part, while Gavin argues that BIP_0014 does not impose mandatory requirements for the version field and asserts that since the software is the same, it should have the same name. Although the two individuals may not reach a consensus on this matter, it highlights the need for clarity in interpreting BIP language and distinguishing between what is permitted, encouraged, or required. To mitigate such confusion, the author suggests adopting the well-established standard language outlined in RFC2119 when writing BIPs.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T02:46:42.216355+00:00