[Standards] XEP-0375 (XMPP Compliance Suites 2016) clarification

Sam Whited sam at samwhited.com
Mon Aug 29 03:37:05 UTC 2016


On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Mathieu Pasquet <mathieui at mathieui.net> wrote:
> Could we get a footnote for User Avatar saying that clients having
> specific restrictions (e.g. console clients like poezio, profanity,
> mcabber, freetalk…, or dedicated clients, for example if someone makes a
> client for blind people) do not have to implement it? It is obviously
> possible to implement with some quirks, but much less relevant to the
> users’ needs.

I don't really think we need a footnote; if we add a footnote for
every possible exception that may be relavant to some special
client we'd end up with a lot of footnotes, and it should be
fairly obvious that it doesn't make sense to implement user avatars in
a console client.

> Also I would replace in the specific sentence “Only one of the
> recommended providers must be implemented for compliance. ”, the use of
> “must”, with “needs to”. Otherwise one could confuse it with having a
> limitation of one provider for the service.

Yes, sorry, this needs to be clarified; I'll try to remember to get
too it the next time I end up working on the document, however, I
sadly no longer have the luxury of working on XMPP related things
during work hours (at least, not as much as I could before), so I'm a
bit slow and really just working on one thing at a time at the moment
(currently some MIX revisions). Pull requests welcome.

—Sam


-- 
Sam Whited
pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3


More information about the Standards mailing list