JEP types (was: Re: [Members] Motion for Last Call on JEP 88)

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at
Wed Mar 24 10:38:00 CST 2004

On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 10:00:16AM -0500, Rottenberg, Hal wrote:
> > In order to define which protocols must be implemented, I 
> > think it is worth bringing back the Protocol Suite JEPs:
> > 
> > JEP-0073: Basic IM Protocol Suite
> > 
> > 
> > JEP-0117: Advanced IM Protocol Suite
> > 
> > 
> > Publishing these would assist developers in knowing which 
> > protocols they really need to implement, and which protocols 
> > are optional.
> Peter, I totally agree.  How do we move forward on this?  Is this
> something on your plate already?  

I will revisit them soon, since they may need to be revised a bit. Once
I publish new versions, they will become Experimental again.

These JEPs were originally intended to help define the JSF's compliance 
testing program, but we have not pursued that further since early last 
year. However, I think these JEPs would still be useful to set baseline 
feature sets.

> Somewhat related, what is the status
> of one of the JEP-0117 requirements, XHTML-IM?  

XHTML-IM is complete from a protocol perspective, but I am waiting to 
hear from my W3C contacts (who seem to have disappeared in the last few
weeks) regarding the formal description of the protocol, which will use
the XML schema version of XHTML Modularization.


Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation

More information about the Members mailing list