Re: BSC 1.4. Where art thou

[Kevin Hawkins <yahoogroupskh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 13/03/2010 09:16, nwemail27 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So what is the status on BSC Ver 1.4?
>
I am not aware of any formal intention to release a BSC v1.4 .     xAP
BSC v 1.3 is current and seems to work really well.  There is however
the need to update the current spec when xAP v1.3 is formalised - but
that only relates to allowing the UID format to be increased regarding
the number of supported digits. This has been well discussed on this
list but should really be rolled into a BSC v1.3a update .

BSC was designed to be exactly that - Basic and Simple - and it
accomplishes that pretty well.  There is great reluctance to complicate
the schema specification with any extra functionality although there are
a couple of unofficial adaptions eg the BSC 'choice' device for
selecting from several presets like PlayPauseFFREWStop  that might
be candidates.  Whatever might be added we must ensure it is fully
backward compatible with the existing BSC.
>
> Where is it being discussed?
>
> Where can we pass comment on the proposed changes/updates?
>
> Where can we contribute our ideas towards a new version?
>
The best place to discuss is right here :-)
>
> Given that it is an open source protocol, shouldn't the above areas be
made available?
>
One thing we have learned is that when you have a dozen independent
contributors to a specification , all with differing views and
even different languages and timezones then getting consensus is
incredibly difficult and causes months of delays.  This is part of the
contributory issue with the xAP v1.3 specification delay and it is
likely that we will drop several intended features simply because we can
not formalise them in a timely or agreed way.   I do agree that the
formal xAP v1.3 spec if lamentably overdue but we also then don't want
to supercede it with a 1.4 version a few months later.
> Being an embedded developer, I for one would like to see some standard
watchdog components being implemented.
>

Make a proposal here and see how it goes - ensure it is backwards
compatible -   you can always create your own schema and propose it be
rolled into another one officially.   That's a pretty 'open' approach.

K
> Regards,
>
> Neil Wrightson.
> N.W.Electronics
> ABN 76 768 513 867
> Embedded Controllers and Home Automation Products
> Skype : Neil_Wrightson
> Web     : www.nwe.net.au
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>



------------------------------------