[standards-jig] [seybold2001] Simplicity and resilience in standards (fwd)

temas temas at box5.net
Wed Sep 19 16:07:32 UTC 2001


I believe your feelings are understandable yet I don't think your
example is the right one.  Most of the JPG clearly states where x
namespaces should be used.  Granted I think our documentation borders on
horrible at times, but we try our best to balance the complex needs of
the community.  What I do feel is correct is that Jabber is an
expandable technology, which the previous rant to seems to be about
partially.  I do believe there is a differnce there, though.  We believe
in allowing expansion in a way that TCP does (in many senses), we let
you put your own payload into our structure and then define how that
payload works.

Anyway, I both do and do not agree with the forwarded post, and I both
agree and disagree with some of your statements.  One thing I am sure
of; we can continue to work carefully to fully define our protocol, have
it documented well, and have it be a powerful, simple, clean protocol.
We just have to be active and contribute as much as possible during
discussions (which I feel have been extremely lacking recently).  No
offense to anyone but let's get this moving, we have issues to discuss
and things to do =)

--temas


On Wed, 2001-09-19 at 10:37, Scott Cote wrote:
> Amen! Just take a look a a posting by Julian Fitzell on the DEV list for
> evidence
> of Jabber having the clarity more of HTML than TCP.
> 
> >> So looking in message.c it's quite clear that the code is written
> assuming that <x>
> >> and <body> do not appear together in one message... is this a rule?  The
> protocol
> >> spec is unclear on this but if it is then JabberIM is breaking it.
> 
> Please forgive me for being harsh. Its just the same kind of frustration
> that caused me
> to give up on Java thats making me sour about Jabber. A whole lot of good
> work has
> been put in place for JEPs yet I feel that before the protocol is extended
> it needs a
> single clear and concise definition that can resolve questions like the one
> above.
> 
> Again, I'm sorry for the rant. My emotions are simply porporitional to the
> excitement
> I had for Jabber a while back.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Scott
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter at jabber.org>
> To: <standards-jig at jabber.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 11:11 AM
> Subject: [standards-jig] [seybold2001] Simplicity and resilience in
> standards (fwd)
> 
> 
> > Some food for thought from another list...
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 09:05:59 +0100
> > From: Julian Bond <julian_bond at voidstar.com>
> > Reply-To: seybold2001 at yahoogroups.com
> > To: seybold2001 at yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [seybold2001] Simplicity and resilience in standards
> >
> > This is a revolution in standards I'd like to see but don't expect in my
> > lifetime.
> >
> > Simplicity and resilience in standards.
> >
> > Someone on the de-centralization list said "Standards shouldn't be built
> > by amateurs". Well frankly the professionals have made a complete and
> > utter hash of it. For a variety of vested interests, the standards we're
> > trying to work with are either broken or have grown so vast that they
> > might as well be. Or there are an infinite number of standards to choose
> > from so they're not really standards are they.
> >
> > Stand back, try and hide your own emotional attachment to any one of
> > these and take a look.
> >
> > - HTML. We still can't agree on what it is. Why do we even need a
> > campaign for conformance.
> > - XML. Have you seen how many entries there are in the alphabet soup?
> > - RSS. No comment.
> > - RDF. Make the standard infinitely extendible. So where's the standard?
> > - XML-RPC. Almost "good enough", but inherently brittle.
> > - SOAP/WSDL/UDDI. I need this in here. And this. And this. And this. How
> > did the standard get so big that the BDG was even needed?
> > - WAP. Let's re-build HTML for the telecoms industry. Like, Doh! WHY!!?
> > - HDTV. Where is it? And why are there 3?
> > - GSM, CDMA, G3, and all the other cellphone standards worldwide. What?
> > Why are there so many?
> > - Java. Which JVM have you got installed? Oh, that's the wrong one.
> > - Perl. Check CPAN. See RDF.
> > - Unix. Sorry, we haven't ported to that one.
> > - Redbook CD. We just need to make a small change to stop you reading
> > the data.
> >
> > Need I go on? The whole computing industry has been throwing rocks at
> > the mirrors and wondering why they can't see themselves afterwards.
> >
> > But look at the TCP/IP standards and all the early RFCs. These are
> > short, succinct, widely adopted, just plain work and have stood the test
> > of time. They are the existence proof that it is possible.
> >
> > --
> > Julian Bond    email: julian_bond at voidstar.com
> > CV/Resume:         http://www.voidstar.com/cv/
> > WebLog:               http://www.voidstar.com/
> > HomeURL:      http://www.shockwav.demon.co.uk/
> > M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173  T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
> > ICQ:33679568 tag:So many words, so little time
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> > Secure your servers with 128-bit SSL encryption! Grab your copy of
> VeriSign's FREE Guide: "Securing Your Web Site for Business." Get it Now!
> > http://us.click.yahoo.com/n7RbFC/zhwCAA/yigFAA/dpFolB/TM
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > Seybold2001-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20010919/c1893e7e/attachment.sig>


More information about the Standards mailing list