[standards-jig] Developmen Standards

Michael Bauer bauer at jabber.com
Tue Aug 14 16:19:43 UTC 2001

Yes!  A response.  Thank you temas.  I'm beginning to wonder if people had

I would just add your caveats to this, temas.  These are really just
guidelines.  I say things like "effort should be made across relevant"
instead of "your product must for all" to keep things loose.  I think by
addressing your concerns, like "of course, your products don't have to be
open to work with open source", and "except for specialized applications
that are integrated with an operating system" it'll make things clearer.

I am a little concerned about feedback, here.  I thought I addressed
everyone's concerns.  Is no one reading this list?

-----Original Message-----
From: temas [mailto:temas at box5.net]
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 7:37 PM
To: standards-jig at jabber.org
Subject: Re: [standards-jig] Developmen Standards

Well this one finally caught my eye, and I feel I need to stir the pot 
here a little bit.  A few lines in here tickle me wrong.  I'll chop them 
out below.

Michael Bauer wrote:

>The Development Standards describe what software development practices
>should be followed in order to effectively integrate software within the
>Jabber infrastructure.  Effectively integrating software centers around the
>delivering software that substantially conforms to relevant protocols,
>behaves appropriately within the overall Jabber environment, and is
>developed in a spirit of mutual cooperation.
"... developed in a spirit of mutual cooperation"
I can understand why this sounds great, but if I was an outside company 
it would sound to me that unless my product was open in some way than it 
wasn't getting past this marker.  Jabber should be acceptable in all 
scenarios as long as they conform to the protocol guidelines.

>Software should conform to a set of Jabber protocols.  Submissions should
>accompanied by a clear description of which draft, core, or alternative
>protocols the software conforms to as defined by relevant namespaces.  
>Whether included with a software submission or not, extensions to the
>protocols should be described with a Jabber Enhancement Proposal (JEP -
>http://foundation.jabber.org/jeps/) that's been submitted to the
>Jabber Interest Group (JIG - http://foundation.jabber.org/jigs.html).  
>Operational integrity of software is up to the individual developer or
>company.  Effort should be made on the part of the developer to create
>software that conforms across all relevant protocol categories and across
>all operating environments.  Effort should be made on the part of the users
"...and across all operating environments."
This just seems like it's asking for trouble, and in reality seems 
rather broad.  Personally, I'm a strong believer in specialized apps, 
working in unison with their operating environment rather than some 
abstraction layer.

>to provide effective and constructive feedback to developers to help them
>accomplish this goal in return for use of the software.  Software should
>fail gracefully whenever possible.  Users should provide specific test
>to identify software failures to assist developers in enhancing operational
>Standards-JIG mailing list
>Standards-JIG at jabber.org

Not much, but wording is always key in docs like this.  Thoughts?


Standards-JIG mailing list
Standards-JIG at jabber.org

More information about the Standards mailing list