[standards-jig] Checking for implementations

David Waite mass at akuma.org
Wed Apr 17 03:45:25 UTC 2002


Adam Theo wrote:

> DJ Adams wrote:
>
>> Hi
>> I was just catching up on the council mailing list, where I came across
>> an interesting snippet of conversation in the thread on JEP-0011 [1], 
>> when talking about the jabber:iq:browse JEP, and whether a new namespace
>> should be used for the slightly modified browse spec, so as not to 
>> break current usage.
>>
>> The gist of it goes like this:
>>
>>   "Do we use a new namespace or not? There are people currently using
>>   browse as it is now..."
>>
>>   "Well, here's a short list: jabberd, JabberCOM, Winjab (etc)"
>>
>>   "Here are some more implementations..."
>
This is why I'm not in favor of the change. Browse is historical; it 
might not be the prettiest thing in the world, if we started from 
scratch we would probably end up with something completely different and 
IMHO much better. But it is in wide use already, and it was never made 
clear that it was not an 'official' standard (since we didn't have 
'official' standards back then).

Either it gets pushed out as is, or we actually open it up _completely_ 
for change; we start trying to figure out the cases where it would be 
used and how to adapt it for all of those.  If we do open it up for 
change, we need to make sure the name does not conflict, and that it 
doesn't have a 'jabber:*' namespace until we are finished with it and it 
is accepted as a standard.

Of course, I make no secret that I dislike browse. It is directory 
services and pub/sub and introspection (and even feature negotiation, by 
some people's definition) all rolled into a tiny ball. I've always 
gotten the feeling that a large part of its design was based solely on 
the need for a better agents retrieval mechanism and a better way of 
representing users in a groupchat. But I am perfectly happy to help get 
it accepted as a standard; then the community can decide if they need 
something greater later on down the line we can always transition - we 
would already have to do transitioning if that something greater was 
available today.

I dunno - I really need feedback from the people on this jig :-) I know 
which way _I_ want to vote, but it really matters more what the users of 
the system want - and because browse was written before there was a 
clear way for feedback to be cast, I'm not clear on what people want.

- Does anyone (besides myself) see a need for something greater in the 
near future? Or is the general concensus that the current features meet 
the forseeable needs?
- Is the consensus that the 'item/category' change (and long-lasting 
compatibility issues that go along with it) is the right thing to do?

-David Waite




More information about the Standards mailing list