[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Metacontacts

Ian Paterson ian.paterson at clientside.co.uk
Wed Mar 28 22:58:40 UTC 2007


Kevin Smith wrote:
> On 28 Mar 2007, at 21:33, Ian Paterson wrote:
>> Yes, this XEP should be written on top of PEP.
>
> I agree entirely. As soon as PEP is usable for this, I intend updating 
> the XEP. However, in the mean time it seems a shame to hold the 
> features back, so we put out the iq:private version. This is already 
> out in the wild (Gajim use this scheme) so it seems a shame to 
> possibly diverge implementations based on iq:private, which would 
> later lead to diverged private PEP implementations.

If we already know that this protocol is going to use PEP in the end, 
then IMHO we should avoid publishing it with iq:private. Otherwise we 
are in danger of encouraging even more early implementations that will 
be incompatible going forward.

Client developers needed PEP yesterday (to put it mildly). Hopefully an 
increasing number of PEP-based XEPs (see XEP-0189) will increase the 
motivation of server developers (once we obtain consensus).

- Ian




More information about the Standards mailing list