[standards-jig] Constraining standards? (was: Discussion on JEP-0016: Server-Based Privacy Rules)
julian at jabber.org
Tue Jan 22 21:18:49 UTC 2002
Iain Shigeoka wrote:
> On 1/21/02 1:31 PM, "Julian Missig" <julian at jabber.org> wrote:
>>The difference between emoticons and server-side blocking is that
>>server-side blocking requires a specific protocol, and I do feel we
>>should continue to define specific protocols - no one is required to
>>implement a specific protocol, but if they choose to follow the standard
>>it will work with all clients and servers which also choose to implement it.
> But how is it looked upon if they implement an alternative protocol then?
> Is that bad or is that just as good as implementing a suggested protocol?
> Does that compromise your ability to claim "Jabber Powered"?
As was discussed before (see archives for this mailing list), "Jabber
Powered" is only for an absolute bare minimum of standards. The Jabber
Foundation does not exist only to define the bare minimum, it defines
extensions and extras too -- it exists to promote cooperation on all
levels, not enforce bare minimums.
email: julian at jabber.org
jabber:julian at jabber.org
More information about the Standards