[standards-jig] software version
matt at jivesoftware.com
Sun Jul 27 20:54:53 UTC 2003
Just wanted to add that I'm in agreement with your position. If you add
elements then it's a "new version" of the protocol and in general it's
more useful to explicitly handle the new protocol versions through
The informational JEP's have always confused me completely. I don't
understand why we even have them. It is indeed good to document old
protocol usage, but if it's never going to become "standard", then
what's the point of calling it a JEP (it could be documented somewhere
else)? :) So yeah, a standards-track version JEP would be cool. If it's
standards-track, that probably means we want to bite the bullet and
switch over to:
1) Using the new style namespaces that are URL's.
2) Not use an IQ "query" sub-packet but something more useful like:
I have a feeling that it's always going to be tricky moving the
informational JEP's into standards-track ones due to the new conventions
that are in place today, but it seems worth it.
Evan Prodromou wrote:
>>>>>>"PS" == Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org> writes:
> PS> So I'd like to propose that we add a <creator/> element to
> PS> jabber:iq:version, which existing implementations could ignore
> PS> if they don't understand it.
> PS> Objections?
> Dang. Annoyingly, I have another objection.
> JEP-0092 is an informational JEP, which "defines an existing protocol
> in use within the Jabber community". The existing protocol doesn't
> have this field or others. Therefore, an informational JEP probably
> shouldn't include them.
> Would it be at all useful for me to write up a new standards-track JEP
> that incorporates the new fields?
More information about the Standards