[Namaste-dev] Re: SuperPortable User Interface Design Document - posted for Review

Michelle w5nyv at yahoo.com
Fri May 23 10:44:13 PDT 2008

----- Original Message ----
From: Frank Brickle <brickle at pobox.com>
To: Michelle <w5nyv at yahoo.com>
Cc: namaste-dev <namaste-dev at amsat.org>
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 9:45:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Namaste-dev] SuperPortable User Interface Design Document - posted for Review

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Michelle <w5nyv at yahoo.com> wrote:
"Nailing the requirements down, reviewing them as widely and as well as we can, and then publishing them will make the design and implementation defensible, easier, and will greatly help in selling the idea to operators. In other words, Jabber isn't mentioned because it's a solution to a set of needs (the upcoming implementation document), not an expression of the set of needs."

and then sometime later Frank wrote:

"Most certainly. However I think the requirements are understood differently according to how they're approached from the get-go. The requirements as outlined in the document are an elementary subset of the capabilities of more than one existing protocol. If it can be shown that all the requirements represent a subset of an existing protocol that is already defined, formalized, and accepted as a standard, then the burden of our responsibility may shift to accurately implementing the standard."
I strongly agree. Let's try and accomplish this. 
When I think of how I'm inclined to approach the process of specifying requirements for this particular station, I think of making a station that does something like Jabber very very well, rather than making a Jabber station. It would be ideal if we could make a platform (allowing customization, experimentation, and applications-layer programming), as opposed to a product, and so far I see nothing that precludes us for doing that. Does that make sense in terms of how you are approaching the station?
-Michelle W5NYV

More information about the Namaste-dev mailing list