[standards-jig] WebPresence

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Tue Nov 5 19:10:22 UTC 2002


With all due respect, the JEP Editor thinks that web presence is a
fantastic idea. So far his impression is that no protocol changes are
required to implement said fantastic idea.

However, web presence might be a good application of pub-sub, since I
might want to make my presence available for anyone to see (a la ICQ).
Presumably a pub-sub component could provide an API to make such
information available over HTTP as well as Jabber (e.g., SOAP?). Of
course, this simply points up our failure to (so far) develop a pub-sub
protocol.

We certainly might want to have some documents that are focused on
implementation guidelines. I'm not convinced that we need JEPs for that,
but I'm open to argument. Let me think about it a bit and I might
reconsider.

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation
http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.php

On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, Michael Brown wrote:

> Re: http://www.yabber.org/jep/webpresence/webpresence.xml
> 
> > 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
> XML one)
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Michael.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
> 





More information about the Standards mailing list