Hi, This sounds really promising. But instead of creating your own protocol, have you thought about extending an already existing one? I see that you have read negative comments about tools using the obby protocol, but have you read about the protocol itself? For instance, even if the gobby seems quite a dead (not commit since 2011-08-07T16:07:00Z+0200), the obby protocol sounds like it has been well thought and should worth give a look. See for instance the annotated obby session[1]. By recreating a new protocol, you might be facing the same issues in synchronization that gooby faced at some time and spending useless effort trying to fix it. As far as I can see, the only thing that appears to be missing in the obby protocol is the possibility to move entries without deleting and reinserting. This makes sense since it is specific to outlined documents. Why not adding this feature to the obby protocol? If the obby protocol or any other RTCE protocol does not fit your needs causing the creation of a new protocol, I think it would be a good idea to write why on your wiki page. By the way, I tried this week end gobby server 0.4 and rudel client (last git version) and it did not manage to connect to the gobby server while a gobby client 0.4 succeeded. So sad... I can't wait to see RTCE of org document! Sincerely, [1] http://gobby.0x539.de/trac/wiki/AnnotatedObbySession François Pinard writes: > François Pinard writes: > >> So, inventing a protocol is still an avenue which I naively seek, and >> for which I dared giving some thought recently, trying to stay on the >> side of simplicity. > > Here is a stab at a simple protocol, which I documented in: > > https://github.com/pinard/ColOrg/wiki/Protocol > > I have the start of colorg.el, and now intend to write the skeleton of a > server. Before committing them, I'll stretch both enough so they speak > to one another. Then we will have a sandbox to play with. :-) > > François > -- Konubinix GPG Key : 7439106A Fingerprint: 5993 BE7A DA65 E2D9 06CE 5C36 75D2 3CED 7439 106A