[Standards] XEP-0375: View from Openfire
dave at cridland.net
Tue Jul 12 16:23:51 UTC 2016
On 12 July 2016 at 17:10, Sam Whited <sam at samwhited.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> > Not *all* Final XEPs are going to be in Core in a Compliance Suite,
> > 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,
> > I'd argue it's Core), but we should be examining mismatches.
> I'd argue there are two other types of XEPs: Those that are widely
> used that we should discourage further use of (eg. XEP-0153 is one of
> these and therefore should not be in the compliance suites in my
Sure, though it's Historical/Active so a little different. I'm not actually
sure it's something we should discourage, mind.
If an Active (or Final) XEP is considered to be discouraged, then we should
move it to Deprecated (or wherever Final XEPs go to die). The Compliance
Suite would, hopefully, reflect that, rather than be the canonical source.
> > - MIX doesn't (yet) belong here.
> And those that are experimental and don't have many features, but that
> we want to strongly encourage people develop and start working on like
> MIX. These should be in the compliance suites (but only if there are
> other alternatives available, such as 0045 in this example) in my
Sure, we do. But nobody can implement MIX right now, so it's a waste of
time trying to put it into a Compliance Suite as anything more than a
mention that we're expecting it to be in the next revision, perhaps.
> Sam Whited
> pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3
> Standards mailing list
> Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Standards