[Standards] [XEP-0375] Unclear Wording (Was: MIX should not be in 2016 compliance list)

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Tue Aug 16 20:10:43 UTC 2016

On 16 August 2016 at 18:18, Georg Lukas <georg at op-co.de> wrote:
> * Sam Whited <sam at samwhited.com> [2016-08-13 19:56]:
>> At least for this particular example there is a footnote for this: "§
>> Only one of the recommended providers must be implemented for
>> compliance. "
> Oops, I totally missed that one :>
>> > I'd like to see an improved vocabulary in the XEP - what are "items",
>> > "line items", "providers" and "features" - do we really need these
>> > terms?
>> Do you have suggestions for alternative terms?
> I think that "feature" and "[feature] provider" are the two most
> meaningful ones of the set. If we replace all occurrences of *item with
> either of the above, that should improve the readability already. Then
> replace the last sentence of the intro with the following, and we are
> set:

This is a bit of a bikeshed, I know, but "feature" to me means
XEP-0030. Maybe "capability"?

> "Support for the listed features is REQUIRED for compliance purposes. A
> feature is considered supported if all providers listed in the feature's
> table row are implemented. Exceptions to this rule are marked explicitly."
> Georg
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
> _______________________________________________

More information about the Standards mailing list