[standards-jig] Software Standards

Julian Missig julian at jabber.org
Fri Aug 17 03:20:33 UTC 2001


Er... more harmless, less harmless, same thing, right?
----- Original Message -----
>From: "Julian Missig" <julian at jabber.org>
To: <standards-jig at jabber.org>
Sent: Thursday, 16 August, 2001 21:24
Subject: Re: [standards-jig] Software Standards


> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
>




More information about the Standards mailing list