[Standards] Re: compliance levels for 2008

Bruce Campbell b+jabber at bruce-2007.zerlargal.org
Sat May 5 19:09:57 UTC 2007


On Fri, 4 May 2007, Rachel Blackman wrote in reply to Chris Mullins:

>> 2 - Rich Messaging. It's no secret that I don't like the XHTML spec, and
>> I think requiring it is a mistake. Our new client, for example, uses
>> Rich Text messaging. We may swap this out with HTML messaging at some
>> point in the future, but it will probably never be XHTML as defined by
>> the XEP.
>
> Sorry, Chris, but there are not enough exclamation points available on the 
> Internet to express how strongly I feel on a '-1!' here.

[snip 'no browser wars wanted here' rant]

The whole point of having shiny icons^W^Wknown levels of compliance is 
that, irrespective of who wrote the client, the clients can talk to each 
other and be understood.  I agree with Rachel in ensuring that this is the 
case.

>> 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.
>
> This much, I suppose I can agree with.  Realistically, SSL libraries are 
> available even for portable phones these days.

-1 for Basic, +1 for Intermediate.

>> I would include for Intermediate Clients:
>> - A means to upgrade the client from one version to another.
>
> Again, beyond the scope of XMPP itself, I think.
>
> Now, if there was an XMPP method for 'Version Notifications from Pubsub,' and 
> we required every client dev to run an XMPP pubsub server (or at least 
> publish a node on some public pubsub server), I could see /that/ being a 
> requirement in some spec. :)

There are better, more scalable methods of doing this.

-- 
   Bruce Campbell.



More information about the Standards mailing list