[standards-jig] Checking for implementations
julian at jabber.org
Wed Apr 17 17:56:50 UTC 2002
On Tue, 2002-04-16 at 23:45, David Waite wrote:
> - 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?
Of course we'll probably make something better in the future. Yes,
something better will probably be needed. However, we cannot vote
protocols down or say they suck just because we cannot see the future.
*Of course* we don't know the full ramifications of any given protocol
that we're trying to standardize (as Mike Lin and others like to
repeatedly point out). *I* see Jabber as an evolving protocol. Just
because we have iq:browse now doesn't mean we can't have something
better in the future. Yes, it will make it harder to get something fully
adopted if iq:browse is already standardized, but it means that we'll
just have to be sure that the newer protocol is that much better than
As much as you or any other Council member likes to point out that these
protocols may not be fully ready for the future, you don't fully know
the future either. If we spent another year working on a different
browse protocol, I'm sure we could come up with something better, but as
it is, iq:browse is something that has already been here for a year.
Let's get it standardized so we have some base to agree on and move
Also, I disagree that browse is really pub/sub. The "Live Browsing" part
was removed from the JEP, so therefore is not officially a part of the
browse standard. If browse did pub/sub in an acceptable fashion, we
wouldn't all be arguing over pub/sub protocols right now. :)
> - Is the consensus that the 'item/category' change (and long-lasting
> compatibility issues that go along with it) is the right thing to do?
Yes. That's initially what I wanted to do to the protocol when I was
writing the JEP, too.
email: julian at jabber.org
jabber:julian at jabber.org
More information about the Standards