[rfk-dev] Request For Comment: robotfindskitten standard
Peter A. H. Peterson
pedro at tastytronic.net
Wed Jun 10 16:33:59 PDT 2009
1. Some thought exercises regarding standard requirements:
a. Imagine an implementation of rfk where robot is in the center of
the field, which moves around him. The Field is larger than the
window, but is otherwise finite. How do we classify this? It's clearly
different, yet seems to retain it's robotfindskittenness. What if the
field was infinite, with some average number of NKI visible at a time?
Or if robot "wrapped" around the edges of the Field?
I would say, as per section 9.2 and others that this would qualify as
a non-standard (but 2d text-based) interface and could still be
considered robotfindskitten. This brings me to my real question:
One can come up with lots of alternative representations that push the
bounds of what is, and is not, robotfindskitten. Do we do enough in
the standard to crystallize what the essence of robotfindskitten is so
as to be able to discern between alternative representations? What
about implementations that push at the conventions and rules of the 2d
2. I'm not sure if this is in RFC 2119 or not (see Terminology), but I
meant to include a section that describes levels of compliance, such
as "compliant", "provisionally compliant", etc. I'll work on something
and post it here.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Peter A. H. Peterson, technician and musician.
---=[ http://tastytronic.net/~pedro/ ]=---
More information about the rfk-dev