[Council] Experimental JEP Implementations

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Wed May 7 17:07:30 CDT 2003

On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 01:08:56PM -0500, Thomas Muldowney wrote:
> So we've been having a discussion on standards and in jdev at conf.j.o
> about publically released implementations of experimental or deferred
> JEPs.  What's come out of it is a question about whether or not
> experimental namespaces should possibly use /experimental vs /protocol
> until draft.  This allows for all people implementing to have a common
> namespace to keep interaoperability going, but has a few questions.  The
> main one is do we need to allow for a buffer time when switching the
> namespace?  I'm a little concerned this leads to code where people just
> work with both names, which doesn't really solve anything, but might be
> ok if they only send out experimental.  I'm not really sure so I'm
> looking for more thoughts from you guys.

I've just added some code to jep.xsl that spits out a nice red warning
at the top of every standards-track JEP that is experimental. That
should scare people off. ;)

> This also brought up a discussion about namespace versioning.  I know
> we've chatted about this before but I can't remember the outcome.  Seems
> like we might want to have the revision number of the version in the
> namespace. Anybody?
> http://jabber.org/protocol/spec/1.0
> http://jabber.org/protocol/spec/2.0

This is probably a good idea but it's a change. :) Do the revision
numbers track the JEP revision numbers? What is the expected behavior
when two applications are using different versions? Etc. I'll have to
chew on this, I guess.


Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation

More information about the Council mailing list