afuruhed

Feedback is welcome.

The (maybe only) good thing about there being no reference implementation is that we get feedback on the protocol itself and not the characteristics of a particular implementation. In this first phase, we are providing tools to ease independent implementation. We think it would be a sign of health that the specs are (become) good enough to create interoperable implementations from. We will make our plans known as they develop. We are doing more with the core protocol next.

Good point. Is it possible to create an unambiguous protocol specification that scales to more complex interactions? If so, and if you know how, I guess you would need a different specification language to get expressiveness? Blink has an extensible schema but that won't cut it. Anyhow, we have so far not even tried to do what you want but we hope that there is nothing in Blink that puts limitations on doing that separately. There is a lot more that we don't try to do in the protocol core.

Wire format - performance. Language describing the format - author friendliness compared to more verbose formats. We are going to release specs for an XML schema format and translations to and from the Blink format. The XML format can be used for mappings to and from "external" schemas. Should we do a JSON schema format?

Please have a look at the schema exchange specification. We welcome feedback. It is too costly to include meta data in every message. http://blinkprotocol.org/s/BlinkSchemaExchangeSpec-beta1.pdf

Anders

Hi, I'm going to update the FAQ. We have started comparing to GPB, please see here.

http://blog.blinkprotocol.org/2013/01/blink-compared-to-goog...

As you can see in a comment by Rolf, part of the perf limitation of GPB is the implementation and not the wire protocol.

Anders