[standards-jig] No Subject....

Iain Shigeoka iainshigeoka at yahoo.com
Thu Feb 7 03:35:24 UTC 2002


On 2/6/02 10:01 AM, "Dave Smith" <dizzyd at jabber.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 04:49:03PM -0500, Mike Lin wrote:
>>> Yes.  Hence, I have moved the discussion of JNG to another thread.  With
>>> regard to JEP 0017, I think our original discussion still stands: there are
>>> difficult problems here and it may just not be worth addressing without a
>>> willingness to consider alternatives to Jabber's "pure XML" approach...
>>> Will a stopgap XML framing effort pay off and be adopted?
>> 
>> There are real benefits to new implementations (such as Jabber.NET and
>> Jabber for embedded devices) from having JEP-0017-style framing
>> information available, since it makes XML Stream interpretation much
>> easier.
> 
> After a considerable amount of contemplation, I'm going to just go ahead
> and concede the point. While I don't agree with the approach, that
> doesn't make the approach _wrong_.

Thanks for saying that.  I'll have to add my vote to this as well.  I don't
like the approach of framing being taken as it seems too much of a hack to
add real value, but my primary complaints have been mainly driven by my
aesthetic dislike for the approach and not how well it fills the limited
role stated.

> *Dizzy eats his hat*

Well, I wouldn't go that far.  :)  Even though something isn't wrong doesn't
mean it's necessarily right.  Sometimes these aesthetic objections are due
to something about the approach that should be examined and in doing so, may
result in a better spec.  That's the whole point of the JEP review process
and the JEP author (Mike) has been very good about taking this criticism
constructively and defending the proposal without being defensive.  As long
as the objections are addressed or at least noted in the JEP, I think it was
well worth it.  Sometimes the reasons behind the standards are just as
valuable as the standards themselves.

> The most important thing is that no matter what the framing protocol,
> everything is interoperable. Jabber can (and should) move beyond a
> single implementation and mindset (as Iain pointed out).

Definitely.

> Mike, my apologies for "dissing" an idea before giving it a chance.

If any of my objections came across as "dissing" I too apologize.  I don't
think we devolved to that though did we?

> Now, I don't think I would like to see this JEP reach a "standard"
> status -- it seems more fitting to term it as "informational" or
> something. There will certainly be other framing approaches, and it
> might be in our best interest to not necessarily push one or the other,
> but instead just document them all and ensure that they can interoperate.

I'm unsure of the value of making it informational.  At least as I
understand it, this JEP addresses the current Jabber protocols without
really intending to extend beyond that.  I'm not sure that we'll be looking
at many more framing protocols for the existing Jabber model.  From our
other discussions on the subject, it seems that any other significant
framing effort will probably require significant Jabber changes and hence,
probably fall into JNG territory.  So whether it is a standard or
informational JEP seems unimportant in the scheme of things.  My very casual
opinion.  :)

-iain


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com




More information about the Standards mailing list