[Standards] Re: compliance levels for 2008

Alex Mauer hawke at hawkesnest.net
Thu May 10 06:06:10 UTC 2007

Boyd Fletcher wrote:
> It simply makes no sense to me to have an Intermediate Client spec that 
> mandated MUC and not have an equivalent Intermediate  Server spec that 
> matches up with the client spec. Talk about sending a mixed message to 
> the users.
> I think MUC is important enough and so universally implemented that it 
> deserves to be in an intermediate spec. I definitely agree that testing 
> should be against a distribution not just the pure XMPP server.

One point against having MUC as a requirement is that MUC can be 
federated out. users on hawkesnest.net can access MUC at 
conference.jabber.org. So the implemented services of hawkesnest.net 
arguably include MUC, regardless of whether it's a part of that server. 
  This is distinct from a mere plugin like starttls.

-Alex Mauer "hawke"

More information about the Standards mailing list