[standards-jig] spring cleaning!

Peter Millard me at pgmillard.com
Mon Apr 21 23:37:39 UTC 2003

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> In attempting to prepare an agenda for tomorrow's protocol discussion,
> I notice that we need to do some spring cleaning on Experimental JEPs:

Thanx for doing this... is desperatly needed IMO :)... Here are some comments
about JEP's which I feel "strongly" about...

> - 18 (Presence) -- this should be retracted (handled by XMPP WG)
Well, I agree and disagree :) Perhaps this should be fixed up (we need to
endenture someone who will actually _DO_ the work) and document whats already in
the "wild". I think Jabber folks will want to continue to use invisible before
it has a chance to be in the charter for XMPP-WG.

> - 31 (Security Framework) -- seemingly inactive
Yeah, it's unfortunate that this has "languished", but it needs to go 'inactive'
or something. Do we have to vote on it to reject it? IE, can the JEP editor
remove things that never go to last call?

> - 38 (Icon Styles) -- some controversy in the Council over this
I still have serious issues w/ -38. My primary concern is that it's impossible
to implement this JEP and still have a client be able to handle 50K message
bodies. I'd like to see this JEP turn into something which just defines
_STANDARD_ emtoticons for jabber, and be done with it.

> - 41 (Jidlink) -- how does this relate to 65 and 47? retract?
This doesn't seem to be useful in a world in which -65 exists (and is Draft).
Needs to be retracted or rejected IMO.

> - 48 (Bookmark Storage) -- pgm?
I need to fix this into an informational JEP which documents what currently
exists in several clients (Exodus, Rival, and Trillian at least).


More information about the Standards mailing list