[standards-jig] informational vs. standards-track

Richard Dobson richard at dobson-i.net
Wed Jul 30 01:11:58 UTC 2003


> This is exactly what I have a problem with. The fact that that the JEP
> was published on the JSF website as an official document means that it
> is now a de-facto standard for anyone wanting to create HTTP polling. In
> some cases, informational JEP's might be great and everyone will be
> happy. In other cases, the JEP's may be quite bad. When they are bad,
> we're kind of screwed because there is no process to improve them before
> everyone sees them on the JSF website and implements them as a "standard".
>
> What if just gave what we're calling informational JEP's a new name,
> their own numbering scheme, and new place on the JSF website? That still
> lets people document protocols they've created while not providing
> confusion over what is actually a standard.

Im not sure this is really necessary, if you look on jabber.org there is a
section called "Standard Protocol" which shows JEP's that are standards,
maybe what we really need is better clarification in the JEP's showing that
they arnt standard just like the Experiemental warning that was added to the
JEP's to more plainly warn people of the dangers of implementing works in
progress.

Richard




More information about the Standards mailing list