[Standards] XEP-0375: View from Openfire

Guus der Kinderen guus.der.kinderen at gmail.com
Tue Jul 12 16:09:22 UTC 2016


That makes sense. I'm not against having a core as well as an advanced
definition in principle. Dave's suggestion to take XEP status as a guide to
what goes where sounds like a good rule of thumb, at the very least.
On 12 Jul 2016 17:02, "Dave Cridland" <dave at cridland.net> wrote:



On 12 July 2016 at 15:55, Guus der Kinderen <guus.der.kinderen at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Perhaps we shouldn't mention MIX at all in this particular compliance
> suite. The MIX specification isn't definitive by a long shot, and although
> there are some early implementations, it hardly qualifies for something to
> be compliant with nowadays. I'd save it for the next editions of the
> complicance suite specification.
>
> I'd like to see the "core server" specifications to be removed completely.
> As it stands, it's of little use, and I doubt if there are server
> implementations that strive to be "core", but not "advanced".
>
>
I think we have four levels of XEP, from an XSF point of view.

- XEPs that are widely implemented, and client developers could consider
hard fails if the support is not present. I'm not recommending refusing to
connect if, for example, XEP-0313 access to personal archives is not
available, but (within this example) a client might be written to consider
its absence as exceptional, rather than attempting to degrade terribly
gracefully. (Note: MAM here is *just* an example). I'd expect these
specifications to be Final, incidentally, so maybe we don't have many of
these right now (and that's an issue we should address). This is basically
"Core" in my mind.

- XEPs that it is the consensus of the Standards SIG that implementations
should aspire to support at this point in time. These would be
specifications we believe are ready (and I would expect these to be Draft -
and if they're Experimental, we should be working hard to move them on).
This is basically "Advanced" in my mind.

- XEPs that are promising, but not there yet. These are Experimental.

- XEPs that we've dropped. These are Deferred, Deprecated, etc.

Not *all* Final XEPs are going to be in Core in a Compliance Suite, simply
because we might not have a compliance suite covering, say, IoT yet. And
maybe there'll be exceptions to the XEP states (XEP-0054 is Historical, yet
I'd argue it's Core), but we should be examining mismatches.

Given all this rambling:

- I do think there's a place for Core, and it's not aspirational.
- MIX doesn't (yet) belong here.

Dave.

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20160712/bb6d1580/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list