[Standards] 301 feedback

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue Jul 2 18:28:13 UTC 2013


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 7/2/13 11:46 AM, Mark Rejhon wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Kevin Smith <kevin at kismith.co.uk 
> <mailto:kevin at kismith.co.uk>> wrote:
> 
> 4.2.2  - I'm aware than we've had debates in the past about how
> much needs to be MTI. As things currently stand, the XEP is fairly
> clear and straightforward, and I wonder if making all of these MTI
> would be
> 
> 
> MTI?

MTI = "Mandatory to Implement"

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think Kev might be
wondering why guidelines that seem implementation-specific are
mandated in the specification, since it could be argued that they are
not critical from a protocol perspective and relate more to user
experience than to network communication.

Peter

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


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=5xTv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the Standards mailing list