[Foundation] Draft JID list

Mathew Johnston johnston at megaepic.com
Wed May 23 17:02:16 CDT 2001


> 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).

I see what you mean, and I appologize for my loose use of terms... for most
people the word 'protocol' covers data formats, value ranges, field names,
as well as the behavior of communicating parties.

> 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.

That's true, and it's good to keep our options. However, the distinction
is not neccessary at this point because I used the word 'protocol' in the
spirit of the word 'standard' :) so, I think we're okay.

> 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?

This general members list will remain operational, for members not in a JIG.
I don't think more mailing lists will be an issue - I personally don't care
if a mailing list is low traffic - that's why you can subscribe - you get the
mail when it comes, you dont have to keep checking all the time. Seperate 
lists are probably not necessary right now, I agree, but seperate JIGs ARE
neccessary.

Mat.



More information about the Members mailing list