[standards-jig] Avatars

Ralph Meijer jabber.org at ralphm.ik.nu
Tue May 6 13:51:06 UTC 2003


On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 05:03:59PM -0500, Thomas Muldowney wrote:
> 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.
> 
> --temas
> 

Hi,
                                                                                
I have had a fairly long discussion with Sebastiaan off list, and I want
to get some of the points to this list.
                                                                                
It seems some developers have implemented the experimental JEP-0008 in
their clients. Not such a good idea. The spec was experimental and later
deferred for obvious reasons. I agree with temas in the 'Tough cookies'
statement and JEP-0001 also discourages implementations on wide scale.
                                                                                
The idea to pubsubify avatars is a good one in my opinion, as I have
expressed in other messages. Sebastiaan agrees with me, and would be
the first to implement the new way, he says. But he would like it in
a new JEP, and have the current one be deprecated.
                                                                                
I see the 'but I have implemented it already' argument frequently. On the one
hand we have people who say: "if it's experimental and you implement: sorry for
you". On the other hand we have client developers who feel ignored because
their implementation doesn't count. There are also some political issues which
I don't want to get into.
                                                                                
If the client developers wouldn't have used the jabber:x:avatar namespace in
their implementations, it would be no problem to totally rewrite this JEP.
They could have used 'myclientname:x:avatar' for as long as the JEP was not
'draft'. If the JEP would then be totally rewritten, at least their
implementation doesn't break down.

Somehow, we need to make it even more clear to developers to not put code based
on experimental JEPs in software meant for widespread use. I can imagine a big
red warning at the top of JEPs. Maybe it is a good idea to have early
implementers use a different namespace as long as the JEP is not in, say, Call
for Experience phase, or even draft.

As you can see, I would like to avoid these situations somehow, and for this
specific case come forward and propose JEP-0008 to be deprecated and the
new avatar spec to be in a new JEP. I don't if it is the best way
to go, but let's discuss this at least.

Thoughts?

--
Groetjes,

Ralphm



More information about the Standards mailing list