Conversation
domfarolino
left a comment
domfarolino
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the "What the framing gets wrong" and "Why this matters for standards review" sections are too wordy and can be reduced to a few sentences each. All we really need to do is show that the "MCP" in "WebMCP" is not literally an extension to the MCP protocol, and shouldn't be evaluated as such directly.
|
+1 to @domfarolino. We expect both conciseness and correctness in this spec repo. Also do not inflict unreviewed code on collaborators. More elaborate support materials, articles, experiments and such are to be hosted outside this spec repo. I’m working on a dedicated community space where to recognize such contributions with an aim to help this group focus on its key deliverable, the WebMCP spec. |
|
Of course! it was my intention just to add a sentence but committed the
edits before I could refine them
then got caught by other tasks
Please feel free to trim down or I ll do it myself in the next 24 hours
I submitted in a hurry while multitasking
the main point can be made in one sentence
PDM
…On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 10:11 PM Anssi Kostiainen ***@***.***> wrote:
*anssiko* left a comment (webmachinelearning/webmcp#111)
<#111 (comment)>
+1 to @domfarolino <https://github.com/domfarolino>. We expect both
conciseness and correctness in this spec repo.
More elaborate support materials, articles, experiments and such are to be
hosted outside this spec repo. I’m working on a dedicated community space
where to recognize such contributions with an aim to help this group focus
on its key deliverable, the WebMCP spec.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#111 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACFKUCNQSTBUQCWD7SCQ6MT4N35HPAVCNFSM6AAAAACWAHOPS2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZTSNRWHA3TONBYGE>
.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
Will close since author has not updated the PR as they mentioned they would. Feel free to re-file ONLY when the above feedback has been addressed, so a much simpler and more concise PR can be reviewed. |
3 participants
I clarify the point that webMCP *as it stands now IS NOT an MCP server generator or DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE an MCP server generator,