[Standards-JIG] Re: XHTML-IM: moving forward
stpeter at jabber.org
Tue Sep 14 15:54:01 UTC 2004
In article <20040914080947.GE1528 at serwis2.beta>,
Jacek Konieczny <jajcus at bnet.pl> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 10:07:54AM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > Hmm, now that I look at this, I think it would make more sense to split
> > out the first Integration Set into a separate JEP -- so JEP-0071 would
> > be the framework and each JEP that defines an Integration Set would be a
> > "profile" of JEP-0071 (much as JEP-0096 is a profile of JEP-0095).
> IMHO we don't need any framework. Leave XHTML-IM JEP as it is. It is
> a good protocol. Any other XHTML JEP would be just other protocol, which
> can be mostly described by cut&paste from XHTML-IM JEP. Another JEP
> describing how to make XHTML JEPs and containin the common part whould
> be IMHO an overkill and may be problematic -- when the "common part"
> needs changes for a new JEP or new XHTML version than it may break some
> old JEPs or a new "framework" JEP would be required.
> Now, when XHTML-IM is mostly self-contained it is ready to implement and
> that is the only thing we want now.
Thanks for the feedback, Jacek. I tend to agree, and I also tend to
think that, while people may talk about the "need" to support other
XHTML modules, we probably will never see a JEP that defines a full set
of requirements and the XHTML Integration Set to make this happen
(though of course such a JEP is welcome). In any case this issue is on
the agenda for tomorrow's Jabber Council meeting, so we will see what
their consensus is, too.
More information about the Standards