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

Goffi goffi at goffi.org
Wed Feb 17 09:38:12 UTC 2016


Hi Dave,

Sorry to re-launch the topic, but I still don't know what is wrong with JID 
mention and what I  need to change to avoid the veto. I have had no 
explanation on the veto, and references doesn't replace mention, so there is 
no alternative for now.

So please tell me the reason of the veto and what I need to change

Thanks
Goffi

Le lundi 8 février 2016, 11:41:22 Goffi a écrit :
> Hello,
> 
> 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
> 
> Thanks
> Goffi
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
> _______________________________________________



More information about the Standards mailing list