[Standards-JIG] Re: XHTML-IM: moving forward

Peter Saint-Andre 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.

/psa




More information about the Standards mailing list