[Standards] XEP-0375 (XMPP Compliance Suites 2016) clarification
mathieui at mathieui.net
Mon Aug 29 23:49:37 UTC 2016
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 08:57:11PM +0100, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On 28 August 2016 at 20:34, Mathieu Pasquet <mathieui at mathieui.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 02:22:48PM +0000, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
> >> Version 0.3 of XEP-0375 (XMPP Compliance Suites 2016) has been released.
> >> Abstract:
> >> This document defines XMPP protocol compliance levels for 2016.
> >> Changelog: [See revision history] (ssw)
> >> Diff: http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0375/diff/0.2/vs/0.3
> >> URL: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0375.html
> > Hi,
> > 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.
> If a typical user wanted an XMPP client, they'd want graphical
> avatars. Poezio (and mcabber, profanity, etc) are all great clients,
> but they're quite obviously niche clients, and I worry that building
> in exceptions might end up with a horribly slippery slope.
Makes sense, I was only nitpicking a bit; it is after all only a
recommendation XEP, but it’s kind of weird to build a client that fits
"Advanced Client" with 2012 compliance suites but not even "Core Client"
under 2016 suites.
> That said, I take your point, and I don't want to exclude these
> clients entirely either if we can come up with some sane language.
I was only asking; if you feel it would complicate the XEP, then it’s
not worth it, since not fulfilling the requirements for a profile
doesn’t stop a client developer from doing anything.
> > 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.
> Perhaps "a minimum of one" ...?
Sure. I’ll whip up a PR for that soon-ish.
> > Thanks
> > --
> > Mathieu Pasquet (mathieui), poezio developer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Standards