[Foundation] Draft JID list
iainshigeoka at yahoo.com
Wed May 23 14:02:30 CDT 2001
At 03:32 PM 5/23/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> Presents all proposals for protocol change to the membership
> for vote. Document protocol changes and maintain protocol docs.
Since the intent of this effort is more precision in both language and
definitions, I'd like to start on the right foot and have this switched to
Standards Development. The Jabber standard is more than just a protocol
definition. There is the naming standard used in JID's and the data type
standards that define jabber packets (message, presence, iq, etc). These
can and probably should be developed separate from the protocols that
describe how these standards are used in communication (but part of the
overall "Jabber Standard" effort).
One of the reasons I'd push for this distinction is the hope that future
protocol standards (say Jabber protocol bindings to an asynchronous
connection model more compatible with mobile connected devices) can be
created and still be compliant with other aspects of the Jabber standard...
unless the community sees the current TCP/IP stream binding of Jabber
protocols being the one and only protocol we will be permitting.
I'm also a bit concerned that splitting things between too many lists will
dilute Jabber effort. I would think that until the traffic warrants it,
its best to actually have as many JIG's as possible share lists. I've seen
it before when a project uses 8 different lists and only one ends up
getting used (usually dev), all the other ones only get occasional "is this
list still alive" messages in them. I think this may be even worse if the
Foundation JIG lists are separate from the jabber.org lists... what will be
the overlap/reuse/confusion/commonality between the protocol at jabber.org and
protocol at foundation.jabber.org lists?
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
More information about the Members