[standards-jig] JEPs and Jabber Adoption

Tijl Houtbeckers thoutbeckers at splendo.com
Mon Jun 30 15:28:56 UTC 2003

"Peter Millard" <me at pgmillard.com> wrote on 30-6-2003 16:56:22:
>I'm curious about what your implying here. I have explicitly endevored 
>to consider, and usually include almost ALL comments I have recieved 
>about JEP-60. Please point me to specific standards-jig posts which 
>show otherwise. As far as I know, this JEP is ready for last call, 
>which I was planning to propose today or tommorrow. If you have 
>specific issues of your own, please send a msg to the list.

I'm not implying that the JEP is bad. If you read my posting closely 
you'll see I think the JEP is reasonable, and better then just 
reasonable (good even) if we consider it a startingpoint for further 
pusub development. 

Neither am I implying anywhere in my postings to this list that the 
JEPs for filetransfer will be bad (when we'll finally have them). Just 
that the same results could have been achieved with less effort. 

I'm not saying that with the current way of working it's impossible to 
get a good JEP in the end (though here too, it'll be a concurrent 
effort from someone in the JSF that will most likely go final). But the 
proces seems to do a lot more damage to the community then an alternive 
more open proces that could lead to simulair results with less effort 
and more appeal. 

Sometimes Jabber is compared to TCP/IP. What TCP/IP is to networks, 
Jabber could be for exchanging XML data. Imagine that for building a 
standerdized protocol on top of TCP/IP you had to go through the JEP 
process! In the case of TCP/IP there are a *lot* of open standards, and 
many try to do the same things. Yet, through the proces of 
implementation and usage, we practically all use the same standards for 
the same things. There is no interop. hell as far as I know! There only 
is in the field where open standards lacked (IM) or were too slow to 
emerge (HTML), because that leads to propriety standards. 

In the JSF corner of the Jabber community there doesn't seem to be any 
room for such parallel *open* development. Multiple times I've seen 
people here tell other, "you don't have to use our standards or wait 
for them to form if we don't have them, go down the closed route if you 
want". Well, I'm glad there's no closed HTTP standard today cause 
someone told them to unify with Gopher first or build their own closed 
protocol. And I'd be a lot happyer today if W3C would have allowed and 
encouraged Netscape to release their extentions as an official open 
addition to the HTML standard. 

Tijl Houtbeckers
Software Engineer @ Splendo
The Netherlands

More information about the Standards mailing list