[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.

/Steffen

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 This is somewhat outdated, you'd use PEP for that.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 other points where this is outdated.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