[Standards] Re: compliance levels for 2008

Fletcher, Boyd C. CIV US USJFCOM JFL J9935 Boyd.Fletcher at je.jfcom.mil
Mon May 7 18:27:48 UTC 2007


Perhaps that is too strict of a definition of a server. Users don't care how muc is implemented just so long as their "xmpp server" supports it. So if you look at server more as an entity not as a single piece of software then it makes sense to mandate muc for intermediate server especially  since intermediate client requires muc.



boyd


Boyd Fletcher
USJFCOM J9/SPAWAR SC SD
M: 757.535.8190 (GSM)
M: 757.771.7084 (BB)
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry. 

-----Original Message-----
From: standards-bounces at xmpp.org <standards-bounces at xmpp.org>
To: XMPP Extension Discussion List <standards at xmpp.org>
Sent: Mon May 07 12:56:50 2007
Subject: Re: [Standards] Re: compliance levels for 2008


Kevin Smith wrote:
> 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.

We can't require that an XMPP server supports things like XEP-0045 
directly since that would mean legislating architecture, but we could 
require support either in the server itself or as an add-on component. 
It's worth discussing.

Peter




More information about the Standards mailing list