Re: [hybi] WAMP RFC Draft Critique

Tobias Oberstein <> Mon, 05 October 2015 08:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 255BA1B4C38 for <>; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 01:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DcXkAhWZrgo6 for <>; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 01:14:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABE501B4C37 for <>; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 01:14:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.377.0; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 01:14:47 -0700
To: Emile Cormier <>, "" <>
References: <>
From: Tobias Oberstein <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 10:14:46 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [hybi] WAMP RFC Draft Critique
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 08:14:51 -0000

Hi Emile,

 > I started reviewing the WAMP RFC draft. I wanted to be able to add
> comments to the text, annotate changes for fixing spelling/grammar, and
> annotate changes for improving the English prose. My proposed changes
> are too numerous to be done via email on a mailing list. I figured the
> best way to proceed was to simply annotate changes in my own GitHub fork
> of the WAMP RFC. If there is a better workflow for collaboration on the
> same Markdown document, please let me know.

I think what you touch here is a general, important question: workflow.

Historically, we've been using a GitHub based workflow for collaborating 
on the WAMP spec: GH issues and discussion there plus pull-requests to 
merge in changes.

This works quite well .. eg. I am able to review (and comment) on your 
changes easily:

> So far, I've only had the chance to review up to the Design Philosophy
> section. Please see
> I'll try to complete my review during the next few weeks.
> I used strikethrough wherever I made edits. I also used blockquotes as a
> way to insert my comments.
> If most of my proposed changes are acceptable, then I can submit a pull
> request that would be more easily mergeable. We can use the Review
> Comments feature of GitHub's pull request to discuss my proposed edits.
> While merging, Tobias/Alex can pick and choose which edits they want to
> keep and those they prefer to reject. We can post links to the pull
> requests on this mailing list to keep everyone informed.
> Please let me know if this way of proceeding is sensible, or if there is
> a better way.
> Cheers,
> Emile Cormier