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

Shawn Wilton shawn at black9.net
Thu Jan 24 00:28:19 UTC 2002


No, the primary complaint against ms products are code bloat.  Everything
crashes and their office suite is hundreds of megs in size.  if it were 30
megs no one would be complaining.

The rendering suggestion I put up is just that a suggestion.  I should not
have used the word standard.  Poor choice on my behalf.  I just want a list
of these items that client authors can go to w/o having to reverse engineer
everyone else's client.  :-)


-----Original Message-----
From: standards-jig-admin at jabber.org
[mailto:standards-jig-admin at jabber.org]On Behalf Of Iain Shigeoka
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 10:36 AM
To: Jabber standards
Subject: Re: [standards-jig] Constraining standards? (was:
DiscussiononJEP-0016: Server-Based Privacy Rules)


On 1/22/02 1:53 PM, "Shawn Wilton" <shawn at black9.net> wrote:

> I'm sorry, but there's no such thing as bloat by having too many unique
> features.

Huh?  Isn't this the definition of bloat?  This is one of the primary user
complaints of microsoft products...

> It still remains a simple concept, if you want to implement it, implement
> it.  If you don't, then don't.  The point is that you *will* have the
> choice.
>
> The whole point of having standards are so people don't implement
different
> ways of doing the same thing.  It's called interoperability.  The
wonderful
> advantage of having a standard is that if I have to use two different
> clients, one for windows, and another for unix then I can move from client
> to cliient and use the same blacklist (for example).  Now I don't
personally
> have this problem since I use a Java client, but those that don't might
> really like the idea of a synchronized blacklist so they don't have to
> update everytime they swap clients.

I agree.  But at some point standards should end and implementations should
begin.  We could theoretically standardize the entire operation of every
aspect of Jabber software from installation to the icons on client buttons.
However, I don't think any of us believes that's a Good Thing(tm).  The
question I'm trying to raise is where do we draw the line.

I understand that there are "core" protocols that are "required" of Jabber
compliant software.  And then all the rest are "recommendations" with the
possibility of overlapping/competing/alternative recommendations to do the
same thing.  And now there are suggestions of including "style guides" in
addition to recommendations (for things like standard emoticons).

I'm just a bit alarmed at the sheer quantity of these 'standards' being
tossed about.  Too much can be worse than too little.

-iain


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

_______________________________________________
Standards-JIG mailing list
Standards-JIG at jabber.org
http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig




More information about the Standards mailing list