[Foundation] Draft JID list
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
More information about the Members