[standards-jig] [jepnews] JEP-0020: Client Feature Negotiation
temas at box5.net
Mon Mar 4 23:14:39 UTC 2002
Why? A solid informational JEP can be just as beneficial. It seems to
me that it's an issue of perception. If JEP20 is mutated into being a
common syntax that is not defined in a namespace it should become
On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 16:43, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > > Of course, it's probably a good thing to use consistent syntax, which is
> > > why I like JEP-0020. I would just like to see it more explicitly spelled
> > > out in the JEP that it defines a syntax only. For example, I don't think
> > > the statement that jabber:iq:negotiate "would enable Jabber entities to
> > > exchange packets to agree on feature options" captures this. We can do
> > > that anyway, obviously, since Ashvil is already doing it. JEP-0020
> > > simply defines a useful syntactic starting point for defining different
> > > negotiation protocols.
> > And it should be an informational JEP not standards track?
> The intent was that this become a standard. Personally I'd like more
> standards and less information -- providing that the standards are right,
> of course.
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Standards