[Standards] long specs

Ben Langfeld ben at langfeld.co.uk
Wed Feb 15 22:47:56 UTC 2012

I like the idea of splitting out non-essential elements of XEP-0045
into separate documents. I can then say my code fully implements
MUC-basic, but not MUC-admin, etc.

As for the versioning issue. Why not have XEPs follow semver?

Ben Langfeld

On 15 February 2012 20:07, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> On 2/15/12 12:48 PM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 2012, at 8:26 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> I'd be willing to work on this, but I want to make sure that
>>> people think there's value in doing so.
>> Personally, I not sure what I hate more, overly long documents or
>> specifications unnecessarily split over multiple documents.
>> I don't consider XEP 45 or XEP 60 to be overly long.
> Half the feedback I receive is (a) it's too hard to read a long spec.
> The other half is (b) it's too hard to read multiple specs. For
> XEP-0060, the feedback is heavily weighted toward (a). For XEP-0045,
> it's about evenly weighted. My conclusion is that we really need to
> split up XEP-0060, and that splitting XEP-0045 into user vs. admin use
> cases would be helpful.
> Peter
> - --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> iEYEARECAAYFAk88EG8ACgkQNL8k5A2w/vyaOwCfUBBv7bE94Om9ImDOoeIQmiTi
> =x30E

More information about the Standards mailing list