[Standards] Re: compliance levels for 2008

Kevin Smith kevin at kismith.co.uk
Sat May 5 20:47:18 UTC 2007


On 5 May 2007, at 00:43, Fletcher, Boyd C. CIV US USJFCOM JFL J9935  
wrote:
> if the intermediate client spec requires XEP-45 then shouldn't we  
> have an
> intermediate server spec that does?

MUC isn't a server requirement, it's a component.

> also if we are recommending XEP-78 then it might be a good idea to  
> add it
> back to the list of extensions though I am curious why we would  
> want to
> recommend a deprecated XEP.

It's nice for testing, and it's nice for the (many) clients out there  
which require it to connect still. It's only a recommended, and this  
won't be a long-term entry to the compliancy suites.

/K

-- 
Kevin Smith
Psi XMPP Client Project Leader (http://psi-im.org)






More information about the Standards mailing list