[Standards] Veto on JID Mention (Was: Council minutes 2016-01-20)

Goffi goffi at goffi.org
Mon Feb 8 10:41:22 UTC 2016


Le jeudi 4 février 2016, 15:57:05 Goffi a écrit :
> I've not problem to have this XEP vetoed if there is a more generic option,
> but I'd like to know what it is and how it can replace a jid mention.
> Also, I still don't see why  "it looks like half a solution".
> So more information and/or a link to a protoXEP would be welcome

Now that a protoXEP is available, it's a bit more clear.
But still I don't see how, and I actually think that "references" does NOT 
replace JID mention. At best it can complete it.

Actually it corresponds to the "mentioned part" of JID Mention (section 4.5).

Don't take it wrong: I think references is a good move and this was lacking in 
XMPP, and JID Mention may and probably should use it, but I don't think it's a 
reason to put a veto on JID Mention as it doesn't replace it at all.

References doesn't show the path, the author or the context of a mention, so I 
feel the veto a bit unfair in this case.

I would appreciate more explanation


More information about the Standards mailing list