[standards-jig] Software Standards

Julian Missig julian at jabber.org
Fri Aug 17 01:24:50 UTC 2001


jabber:x:events is probably a lot less harmless than jabber:x:oob ;)

Julian

----- Original Message -----
>From: "DJ Adams" <dj.adams at pobox.com>
To: <standards-jig at jabber.org>
Sent: Thursday, 16 August, 2001 19:26
Subject: Re: [standards-jig] Software Standards


> On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 05:41:45PM -0600, Michael Bauer wrote:
> >
> > Here's a draft charter on Jabber Software Standards.  It's intended to
> > capture our collective thinking on what a "standard" and what
"conformance"
> > with a standard currently means in Jabber.  Forgive me if it doesn't
seem
> > very clear.  Perhaps you can help me clarify it with your feedback.
>
> This makes a great start - nice one.
>
> I think the original idea as previously discussed in this list still is
> the one we should be aiming for - and indeed fits in with the idea of
> the diference between /conforming/ and /complying/ as expressed in the
> draft charter.
>
> The intention of the namespace usage document was to be a starter at the
> lowest level of granularity for conformity focus. It seems from the
comments
> that we generally agree that a particular software 'candidate' will
> implement a set of these protocol 'granules' - namespaces, as we already
> know - against which we can test conformity.
>
> I think the SC JIG sits at a rather central place in a lot of the
activities
> within Jabber and the Foundation, and that's going to make the job a
little
> harder - we are trying to define conformity to standards that are emerging
> as we go along. And I'm not just referring to the 'draft' set of protocols
> on the docs site. I've had first hand experience at trying to wring the
> essence of the protocol - which encompasses /rules/ as well as
/definitions/ -
> in putting together the draft reference for s2s.
>
> As Julian's already said, we also need more than just the protocol
> descriptions ("it looks like this") to go on. So there's a lot to do, but
> at least it seems we know which direction to go in.
>
> Why don't we pick a fairly harmless namespace, such as jabber:x:oob, and
> try and come up with what we think ought to be the underlying
documentation
> to base the standards compliance work upon? We can then use that as a
> model to progress.
>
> What do you all think?
>
> dj
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
>




More information about the Standards mailing list