[Standards] 2009 compliance suites?

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue May 27 18:05:27 UTC 2008


On 05/27/2008 11:02 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
>>> I'm pretty happy with the way we previously used RECOMMENDED, I think
>>> it's a good heads-up that it'll be required the following year.
>> Except that sometimes it may not be required, in which case the
>> RECOMMENDED is a false alarm. An example might be XEP-0155 in 2008,
>> which we expected to lead into ESessions as REQUIRED for 2009 in some
>> suite (which now seems unlikely).
> 
> Sure, I'm happy with that as a reason not to do it again :)

Or: we could have a section in each suite about "possible future
additions" so that developers have a heads-up, but not make them
RECOMMENDED.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20080527/aab9d151/attachment.bin>


More information about the Standards mailing list