[standards-jig] informational vs. standards-track
matt at jivesoftware.com
Wed Jul 30 15:47:12 UTC 2003
That's a good idea. As long as there is an easy way for outsiders to be
able to tell the difference between what is a "standard" and what isn't
more easily, that would help a ton.
Ralph Meijer wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 12:29:06AM -0600, David Waite wrote:
>>I think they should be called informational notes rather than JEPs
>>because the P stands for Proposal. Something which documents an
>>existing, deployed system is most certainly not a proposal :-)
>>And while we are at it, I'd love it if only informational notes and JEPs
>>which are made 'active' are assigned numbers, and before that they have
>>an internet-draft document name and versioning. It would sure make it
>>easier to figure out what people are talking about ;-)
> Hmm. I would say Jabber Enhancement Proposals are just that: proposals. My
> take is we need a separate list of accepted protocols JEPs and call them
> Jabber Standards[*]. With their own number.
> It seems odd that people have to implement Proposals when they are accepted.
> I'd rather see people implement Standards and having such a list makes it
> less cluttered for 'outsiders': JEPs are what we are currently working on,
> JSs are protocols we agreed on and everyone could/should use.
> Also, JEPs should also be used to document other ideas to enhance Jabber,
> non-protocol like. Call them informational. Like we had the JIG JEP and I'm
> sure we could think of other such proposals.
> [*] Don't bother going into the Jabber vs. XMPP debate. I am not interested
> in the naming.
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
More information about the Standards