[standards-jig] Breaking Standards [was: disco, x:data, etc...]
Matthew A. Miller
linuxwolf at outer-planes.no-ip.com
Fri Feb 21 21:28:20 UTC 2003
As I and others have pointed out, you are breaking a number of
standards. The time to question them has passed. A number of solutions
to your particular problems have been presented, but refused. Instead,
we have a case of trying to modify the standards because of a single
implementation refusing to comply.
A community is only as strong as the cooperation of its members, and
standards are the letter for that cooperation. Instead of cooperating,
this implementation has seen fit to toss it aside, and for what? A
quick and potentially ill-conceived "fix" to a problem that has many
solutions which are seen as more elegant and practical by the community.
The suggested changes to the addressing scheme of Jabber and XMPP is not
a simple, minor, or agreed-to task. The current standards for
addressing in Jabber and XMPP have reached consensus, even acceptance,
by the vast majority of the community. Many existing implementations
rely this standard. We consider it a great success that we have such
interoperability, especially when similar efforts elsewhere cannot begin
to boast of such feats.
But yet, by implementing and relying on this "non-standard", to the
exclusion of other solutions, begins to defeat the very point to
standardization, and break down our community. We now have
implementations that are not merely obsolete, but purposefully
non-compliant. That this implementation "interoperates" with another
implementation from the same "vendor" is laughable. This is not
cooperating with the community; this is destroying it.
Disliking the realities of the standards-process is irrelevant, because
it does not change that reality. The "simple task" spoken of is *not*
simple, because it requires consensus before it can be approved. That
consensus is currently nonexistent.
Using xml:lang as an example for why node should be added is not
relevant. xml:lang is there to meet the XMPP charter, which also has
nothing to do with addressing. Though very helpful, its presence is
also not critical to the successful interoperability of
implementations. On other hand, the addition of "node" to the
addressing scheme does have a critical impact. The current requirements
for this are unclear and not well exemplified. The current addressing
scheme was and is not considered deficient, except by a very vocal, but
very small minority.
Matt "linuxwolf" Miller
JID: linuxwolf at outer-planes.net
E-MAIL: linuxwolf at outer-planes.net
- Got "JABBER"? (http://www.jabber.org/)
More information about the Standards