R: R: R: [phpxmlrpc-devel] is this list working?

[Gaetano G. <giu...@se...>]

[SNIP]

>=20
> > If you are developing a server open to public usage it=20
> > might not look very 'clean', but then you're better off=20
> > sticking to the protocol as much as you can anyway ...
> > yes, you're right.

> another option: influence xmlrpc spec to allow scientific=20
> format. but how, i don't know yet.
>=20

Sorry, but this is not an option.
If you dig a bit in the xml-rpc mailing list, then you'll see that Dave =
Winer (spec author and copyright holder of the name) has a fairly =
precise opinion on it: xml-rpc is 'cast in stone'. He won't even allow =
changes in the wording of the spec that would clarify =
long-(long)-standing issues (such as: is ISO-DATETIME meant to be a full =
ISO confomant representation or is the only valid format for dates the =
one specified in the example? etc...).
Some people even started out their own 'improved' version of the =
protocol (e.g. xml-rpc over e-mail), but I dunno if those dialects are =
still growing or plain dead.