3 Sep
2024
3 Sep
'24
10:23 a.m.
On Sat, Aug 31, 2024 at 12:01 PM Melvin Keskin <melvo(a)olomono.de> wrote:
Hi,
At the moment, it is not recommended to provide a web registration URL
if the server supports account creation via IBR.
I created https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1299 to provide a web
registration URL in addition to account creation via IBR. The client or
user can decide which one to choose.
Please let me know what you think about it.
To the Council:
1. What exactly do you mean by *The language is weird*?
Specifically the sentence "That approach does not limit future
development as the former one did which recommended to provide either
account creation via XMPP or a web registration URL."
"the former (approach)" in this context seems to refer to the former
version of the XEP. Which essentially puts the justification for the
change (or the change log) into the text of the specification. As a
reader of the XEP I have no idea nor do I care about the historical
context of the XEP.
A specification should just instruct readers what to do (with the
limited justification) but not narrate the history of the XEP.
2. I tried to describe the use case. Could you please
explain your
doubts?
I have no doubt that in an experimental XEP this would be a useful change.
3. Why would such a change be problematic for a final
XEP?
Because it may break existing clients as this is a pretty significant
change to normative language.
The bar for changing final XEPs should be *extremely* high. As in "we
generally don’t do that". RFCs are immutable too.
"Nice to have" doesn’t cut it.
4. Where should I add that change instead?
We are already developing successors to in band registration. Namely
XEP-0389. Make sure your use case is covered there.
cheers
Daniel