temas at box5.net
Mon May 5 22:03:59 UTC 2003
No it won't be a new JEP. We deferred the one that exists, and it's
still mostly OK. I'll gladly take this up again. Note, people that
implemented the current spec, knowingly implemented something that was
experimental and then deferred. Tough cookies if it breaks.
On Mon, 2003-05-05 at 16:47, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Sorry, yes, this would be a new JEP.
> On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 11:39:10PM +0200, Sebastiaan Deckers wrote:
> > There are many client implementations of JEP 8 out there. It's almost 2
> > years old, more than some of the active JEPs!
> > Maybe it would be better to start a new JEP so that the old protocol is
> > not "lost"? Or maybe we need a JEP graveyard? ;-)
> > BTW, which issues should a pubsub avatar JEP solve? (seriously)
> > --
> > Sebastiaan
> > Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > >A while back, the Council deferred considation of JEP-0008 until we
> > >developed a stable pubsub protocol. Since the latter seems close to
> > >coming true, it seems that it might be time to dust off JEP-0008. Any
> > >volunteers?
> > >
> > >http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0008.html
> > >
> > >/me foresees a whole raft of pubsub-related JEPs in the near future :)
> > >
> > >Peter
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
More information about the Standards