From: David Hall <dmhall_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:03:14 -0500

Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, David Hall wrote:
>
>> Those who value core size over eye-candy would have a nice, clean and
>> simple WPS interface very similar to today (with arguably less
>> cruft), while those who want massive eye-candy WPSs would have a way
>> to implement them without interfering with the core functions.
>
> Yes, but how is my suggestion not satisfying exactly what you're
> saying? In fact, so does Jdgordon's too, we just have two different
> approaches for it.
(Clarification for everyone else, Daniel set me straight in IRC.)
After rereading the thread a couple of more times I see now where I was
mistaking your opposition to _extending_ the WPS through a plugin to
opposition for a WPS plugin in general.
Received on 2007-01-18