31 Mar
2026
31 Mar
'26
11:07 a.m.
Hi,
On Tue, 2026-03-31 at 11:59 +0100, Kevin Smith wrote:
I think Matthew’s change is doing this the right way
for Stable -
Stable allows changes to the XEP as long as they’re
backwards/forwards compatible, which AFAICS Matthew’s proposal is.
I don't disagree that it is formally correct and allowed to have this
change in a Stable XEP, but I believe the feature in of itself is more
of Experimental quality, meaning we might want to do changes to it that
are not backwards-compatible. If we introduce it into a Stable XEP, we
can't do that. I also fail to see the benefit of adding it to the
existing XEP over creating a new one.
After all, we intentionally have multiple XEPs and not one single
specification with a lot of optional parts. Denoting the status of
features within our specification set is one of the benefits we earn
from doing so. Let's make good use of it.
Marvin