[standards-jig] informational vs. standards-track

Matt Tucker matt at jivesoftware.com
Wed Jul 30 20:18:55 UTC 2003


> (pardon in advance for the tone here, but I'm tired of having to deal with
> this sort of thing instead of making progress technically)

And I'm tired of the "good old boy" network that seems intrinsically 
resistant to any form of change.

>>  1) Are frustrated that there has been so little progress on 
>>some important JEP's.
> Then they should participate in the process, rather than expecting people to
> do all of their work for them.

Yes, I agree. But, I think the process needs to change to make this 
easier. Further, I'm not talking about the perspective of people that 
are creating new protocols. Rather it's the perspective of client 
developers that are consumers of the protocols the JSF creates and 

The major audience for JEP's is *NOT* other JEP writers, it's people 
looking to implement JEP's. That is why it would be very useful for us 
to further classify what is a standard, give specific recommendations 
for what people should implement, what JEP's are informal/informational, 

>>  2) Have had tons of confusion over what JEP's they should 
>>implement in their clients.

> They can start a standards-track JEP that does the same thing, using the
> information JEP as inputs, if they desire.  Pick a new namespace, and go.
> I don't understand why that's so hard to understand.

Let me give you a specific example. JEP 49 (Private Storage) is 
Informational/Active. JEP-0098 (Enhanced Private XML Storage) is 
Standards Track/Experimental. JEP 98 is already better than 49 and will 
hopefully continue to improve. However, if I'm a client author looking 
at the list of JEPs trying to pick one of the two to implement, how do I 
know which one to pick? Because I am personally quite familiar with the 
JEP process, I could make an informed decision. I'm not sure that most 
developers looking at the list of JEP's would be able to, however.

It doesn't benefit developers to have two different JEP's that do the 
same thing. Wouldn't it be nicer if there was one JEP that the community 
agreed was "best" and that went through some sort of revision process? 
Of course, that won't happen when there are legitimately different 
possible approaches to solving a problem (such as the different e2e 
specs). But, if it's just a matter of someone hacking something together 
as an informational JEP and then someone else having to come through and 
  make it standards track, that's what it would be nice to have a better 
process around.

 > Then you need to give actual substantive feedback on JEPs, and
 > write some of your own, rather than BOGGING US DOWN WITH YOUR

Give me a break. There's plenty of room for both technical work and also 
discussions for trying to figure out how that technical work can be 
improved or disseminated more effectively.

There's been some good suggestions around changing the language on the 
website a bit to make it clearer what the difference is between a 
standards track JEP vs an Informational one. Can we pick one of those 
suggestions and move on?


More information about the Standards mailing list