[Standards] Move Carbons to Last Call ("Proposed")
kevin.smith at isode.com
Wed Aug 12 15:45:19 UTC 2015
On 12 Aug 2015, at 16:42, Ralph Meijer <ralphm at ik.nu> wrote:
> On August 12, 2015 5:31:25 PM GMT+02:00, Kevin Smith <kevin.smith at isode.com> wrote:
>> On 12 Aug 2015, at 16:14, Ralph Meijer <ralphm at ik.nu> wrote:
>>> On August 12, 2015 4:50:18 PM GMT+02:00, Kevin Smith
>> <kevin.smith at isode.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12 Aug 2015, at 15:44, Ralph Meijer <ralphm at ik.nu> wrote:
>>>>> On August 12, 2015 3:07:44 PM GMT+02:00, Kevin Smith
>>>> <kevin.smith at isode.com> wrote:
>>> We've seen a lot of hinting at improvements, and I do remember your
>> own suggestions, but I wonder if we couldn't do that in a new spec
>> instead. When have we waited long enough to decide this is the best we
>> can do for now?
>> Well, that was the proposal I made earlier this year, and there was
>> wide agreement that a new spec was the wrong approach, and waiting for
>> Carbons was right. I’ve even convinced myself at this point that
>> waiting for Carbons is probably right.
> I don't recall if I was against a competing spec back at the summit, but generally believe competing Experimental XEPs are a good thing. Even if yours isn't adopted, at least we have an easier-to-find record of it. Digging through a heap of mails and chat logs is a lot easier with a XEP number.
>> Dave - do you have an ETA on the pubsub/Account stuff? I think that
>> might help matters significantly.
> Agreed, although I still believe that stuff is much further in the future as a thing to build on.
It’s not that I want to build on it, it’s that there’s an interaction, so I’d like to make sure that Carbons is written in a way that will allow PubsubAccount to work later on. An early Experimental XEP would be sufficient, I *think*.
Then there’s the Normal message thing. If that’s the only other stumbling block, is it worth me trying to write a patch for 280? I haven’t discussed with Joe/Matt.
More information about the Standards