[Standards] XEP-0134: XMPP Design Guidelines

Steffen Larsen zooldk at gmail.com
Fri Feb 28 08:16:46 UTC 2014

Yes, you are right Christian. I think that maybe the editor team will create some script that might reveal some of our XEPs that need to be updated into new states etc.


On 28 Feb 2014, at 09:10, Christian Schudt <christian.schudt at gmx.de> wrote:

> 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 This is somewhat outdated, you'd use PEP for that.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 other points where this is outdated.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 Yes, that document is probably well out of date now.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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4130 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20140228/54772d88/attachment.bin>

More information about the Standards mailing list