[jdev] RE: [Standards] Re: compliance levels for 2008

Pedro Melo melo at simplicidade.org
Sat May 5 11:18:00 UTC 2007


On May 5, 2007, at 1:18 AM, Chris Mullins wrote:

> I've got a few issues that I think need being brought up:
> 1 - Avatars. It's a feature users expect, and a client without them
> can't even be considered a toy these days. None of these client specs
> talk about Avatars. This is something that needs to at least be in the
> Intermediate spec.

Not basic for sure. Maybe intermediate.

> 3 - VCards. Everyone expects VCards (especially Avatars and Friendly
> Names) in one form or another. This should be in the Basic Spec.

yes, not because of avatar though. avatar in v-card, although a de- 
facto standard right now, are evil, IMHO.

> 4 - Bookmarks. This should be in the Intermediate Spec alongside MUC.

not sure.

> 5 - XMPP IRI's. For example, if I have Exodus or Pandion running, and
> click on an XMPP IRI in FireFox, the behavior works (mostly) as I  
> expect
> it to. This should be a required client feature for the Intermediate
> (Advanced? Complete?) Spec.


> 6 - We should require an XML Debug Window of some sort. Tie it to a
> standard Keystroke (Exodus, Pandion, and our new Communicator all use
> F12), so that it's practical to have a debug session with someone.  
> This
> should be in the Basic Spec.

Nope. I don't mind having a "hidden" feature on most clients to  
enable this, but I would never suggest putting this completely in the  
open. i think it's too geeky and really only required as a last form  
of debug.

To debug client problems, I would very much prefer to have this on  
the server side. If I could ask my server to forward me the entire  
session of the user, live, that would be a much better tool, because  
it doesn't depend at all on the client.

> 7 - We should require clients to support Start-TLS streams. This is an
> optional thing in the RFC, but clients really need to support it. This
> should be in the Basic Spec.

mixed feelings. I like the fact that it is optional in the RFC,  
because extremely simple clients can just not use it and be compliant.

> I would also, for BASIC clients, require:
> - An Install and uninstall mechanism that works with the target O/S

some OS's don't have that concept, or they have only as a secondary  
choice. So -1.

> - A means to quickly and easily report a bug against the client.

I don't think this should be in the spec.

> I would include for Intermediate Clients:
> - A means to upgrade the client from one version to another.

Again no. Corporate clients like to push things from a central place,  
so they don't like software that "updates" itself.

> - File transfer. Come on guys! :)

Sorry, no :).

A lot of corporate enterprises forbid File Transfer. Does that mean  
that a client that I want to sell to a corporate environment can  
never achieve compliance?

I like the idea of compliance levels, but a corporate user, a  
residential user and a mobile user live in very different worlds.

Best regards,
Pedro Melo
Blog: http://www.simplicidade.org/notes/
XMPP: melo at simplicidade.org

More information about the Standards mailing list