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

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Wed Sep 19 16:26:05 UTC 2001


BTW, here's a follow-up message on the seybold list:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/seybold2001/message/120

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
email/jabber: stpeter at jabber.org
web: http://www.saint-andre.com/

On 19 Sep 2001, temas wrote:

> 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
> 
> 




More information about the Standards mailing list