[Council] Discrepency between JEP-0020 and its References

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Thu Apr 22 14:52:17 CDT 2004


On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 10:12:48AM -0600, Peter Millard wrote:
> Matthew A. Miller wrote:
> > After discussing this with a couple of others, my personal opinion is
> > that a modification to JEP-0020 is appropriate, to use <feature/>
> > instead of <query/>, and ensure that change is properly reflected to all
> > references to JEP-0020.  However, JEP-0020 is a standards-track JEP in
> > the "draft" status, so the impact of this change could be significant.
> > Yet, there seems to be significantly more implementations of the JEPs
> > that conceptually rely on JEP-0020 than on JEP-0020 as-is.
> > Thoughts?
> 
> I'm +1 on changing -20 and -116 to use <feature> instead of <query> and
> <features>. It seems there are more implementations of -95 & -96 than
> _JUST_ -20. I agree that changing 95 & 96 would be more of an impact than
> changing -20.
> 
> pgm.

Works for me. Not sure how this one slipped through...

/psa




More information about the Council mailing list