[Members] Motion for Last Call on JEP 88

Richard Dobson richard at dobson-i.net
Mon Mar 22 08:26:02 CST 2004

> Richard Dobson wrote:
> >>For this reason I suggest the JEP is changed to Informational.  (Is that
> >>possible at this stage in the JEP process? stpeter?)
> >
> >
> > Problem is I dont think its really appropriate for Informational as it
> > defined in JEP-0001 because for this to work it needs to be defined as
> > standard for server defined webtabs, also the wording for Standards
> > doesnt seem entirely clear as to what it means, wether it means that
> > have to implement the protocol whatever (not quite what I am aiming for,
> > dont want to force people to implement webtabs)
> You can't force them.  Not all programming languages or client designs
> can support webtabs.  I know that Tk sucks just enough that it doesn't
> have an html renderer.  Nor can it encapsulate another window and make
> it appear as part of the application.

Exactly thats my point, I think the definitions of what Standards Track is
may need some clarification, for webtabs to work it needs to be the standard
way of doing it but does being Standards Track mean client developers are
required to implement this whatever (even if their UI does not fit in with
the functionaility), or does it mean that this is the standard way of doing
it if client developers implement said functionality? (which is what I need
it to be).

> It's nice that MS came up with this and the gtk people copied it.  But
> for the rest of the world it's not that easy.
> Plus, how do you handle command line clients?  There is no GUI with
> which to display HTML.

My point exactly.

> My fear about making this a standard is that it's a standard that not
> everyone can meet.

But as I say, do we really need to have all standards as being required to

> Maybe we need a third track.  Optional standards.  A standardized way of
> doing something without making it part of the official Jabber standard.

Well it would be a part of the offical Jabber standards, just not a part
that is required to implement in order to be deemed compliant. Optional
standard seems a good option, or maybe an there needs to be an extra
attribute on Standards track saying if it is a Core standard (required to
implement) or an optional standard. Rereading the definition of Standards
Track it doesnt seem to mean that it is required to implement, just that it
will be required as part of a protocol suite or be the subject of compliance
testing, now this doesnt seem (to me) to say that it is required to
implement no matter what even if the client design is not appropriate for

> But really...  That's what informational is meant to be.  I had to
> figure something out, here it is, you can freely use it as a standard.

That is the problem with it being informational, it doesnt mean its a
"standard" to work webtabs needs to be some kind of standard, informational
to the casual observer is a list of historical JEPs that are not standards
and are things that are probably going to be superceeded by something new,
IMO informational is not really appropriate for this protocol.


More information about the Members mailing list