[standards-jig] Constraining standards? (was: Discussion on JEP-0016: Server-Based Privacy Rules)

Iain Shigeoka iainshigeoka at yahoo.com
Tue Jan 22 17:33:43 UTC 2002


On 1/21/02 2:41 PM, "Shawn Wilton" <shawn at black9.net> wrote:

> I just want to point out one more time, that the idea of message rendering
> that I posted was not that you are forced to implement it, but rather that
> every client author has something to work off of.  A standard list of
> suggested maps and icons if you will.  A lot of clients implement different
> parse maps and if they added the standard ones as well, then that could go a
> long way in terms of useability.  People keep reading that and getting the
> idea that you will have to format the text in some specific way and that's
> just a crock of butter.  This is more of an optional guideline if you will.

I agree.  But this sounds more like a "Jabber style guide" and not a
standard or protocol.  I'm all for style guides and other aids for keeping
the Jabber user experience consistent.  Especially for client developers who
just want to create a "generic Jabber client" and are willing and eager to
chase taillights.  I just don't like the idea of us _specifying_ things that
are a matter of style or implementation.

> As for the privacy, you have to have a standard so that it works across
> clients and servers, hands down.

I still don't understand why this is the case.

I can understand a standard method of indicating that a message is being
blocked.  Like in HTTP when you can send an HTTP authentication needed.  IMO
however, like HTTP, we shouldn't specify if that blocking is configured
using .htaccess files, nice gui's like Microsoft's, or sophisticated network
management tools ala J2EE.  Nor should we specify how the blocking is being
determined (white lists, black lists, gray lists, etc).  Clients just know
that they're being blocked with a standard Jabber error code/message.

How Clients configure blocking should also be out of the spec.  It can be an
IQ extension but it should also be just as possible to support blocking but
provide all configuration using a web page, or other existing tools.  I
don't see why it must be through a standard Jabber IQ protocol (or however
it may be done).

Once again, if we specify this, then how do we determine Jabber compliance
with implementations that choose to do it differently?

I don't meant to be a hard @$$ on this but I think this is an important
issue.

-iain


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




More information about the Standards mailing list