[Standards] XEP-0134: XMPP Design Guidelines

Christian Schudt christian.schudt at gmx.de
Fri Feb 28 08:10:19 UTC 2014


Hi,

I always like up to date documents and specifications. So I vote yes :-)

In my opinion, there are (too) many "last-updated-2004" documents. (or at least mid-2000s)
Or generally documents, which are really long in Draft state. (XEP-0001 says it can become Final after 6 months in Draft and 2 implementations, which probably apply to most XEPs)

Or documents which feel strange, when reading them, e.g.
XEP-0270 vs XEP-0302, which imply that XMPP isn't moving much since 2010.

Christian


Am 28.02.2014 um 01:24 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:

> Old, nay ancient, thread alert!
> 
> On 9/17/12, 2:31 PM, Philipp Hancke wrote:
>> While searching for the design guideline that says "don't put big things
>> inside a presence stanza, use PEP" I found XEP-0134 and it almost had
>> what I was looking for:
>> 
>>> Finally, as explained in XMPP Core, the <presence/> stanza exists to
>>> broadcast network and communications availability only; for more
>>> advanced information publishing, use Publish-Subscribe [7].
>> 
>> This is somewhat outdated, you'd use PEP for that. There are several
>> other points where this is outdated. How comes nobody ever noticed that
>> (Peter has an excuse -- he was expecting feedback)?
>> 
>> My effort may be in vain since google doesn't seem to consider 0134 to
>> be important but I'll raise (some of) the issues anyway. Specifically:
>> 2.1: XMPP is Sacred
>>     well, it's a hard process, but making changes is possible.
>>     The reference to XEP-0060 ought to be replaced by one to 0163
>>     obviously.
>> 
>> 2.2: how long has groupchat been deprecated? 8 years at least? Doesn't
>> strike me as a good example these days.
>> 
>> 2.3: jingle/ice might be a better example.
>> 
>> 2.4.: oh, this section still calls it "Jabber" :-)
>> 
>> 2.5: again, jingle would be a better example.
>> 
>> Generally, i think this document is really 2004! Alot has changed since
>> then. XEP-0115 (in it's current revision) certainly impacts the design
>> of new extensions, as does PEP. Are things like SI (XEP-0095) still
>> relevant?
> 
> Yes, that document is probably well out of date now. Do we feel it would be worth the effort to bring it into the modern world?
> 
> Peter
> 




More information about the Standards mailing list