michael at aurora.gen.nz
Tue Nov 5 07:46:04 UTC 2002
> I am rather neutral on whether this should be a JEP, if it does
> become a JEP its definitely informational and not standards track.
Why? It's really frustrating when people make statements like this without
providing any sort of reasoning. Here's what JEP-0001 says:
"An Informational JEP defines an existing protocol in use within the Jabber
community without proposing that it be added to the standard protocol, or
provides information related to the functioning of the JSF. This JEP type is
of secondary interest."
This document is *not* defining an existing protocol. There is *no*
existing implementation that I am trying to document. It *is* trying to
define a standard. It is clearly IMO not an Informational JEP.
The definition of a standards JEP is:
"A Standards Track JEP defines a proposed enhancement or extension to the
official Jabber protocol. This is the main JEP type of interest to the JSF."
I think this is pretty clear. This *is* defining a standard. (Albeit not an
> It seems to me that a Solutions Guide/Best Practices section on
> j.o is needed. Where people can post implementation
> guidelines and various howtos.
I really can't see this working. Without any formal process of
peer-review/discussion/revision/voting no one is going to be able to agree
on these implementation guidelines and howtos.
More information about the Standards