[Standards] Expanding XMPP Registrar Services
flo at geekplace.eu
Tue May 31 21:00:44 UTC 2016
On 31.05.2016 22:11, Dave Cridland wrote:
> I think this is a great idea, despite it having the potential to
> increase effort further.
Thanks Dave. :)
> 1) I don't like "Proposed", mostly because we have a XEP state of that name.
What do you suggest instead? IANA also has these two states with the
exact same name. Think of it as "Proposed Registry Entry".
> 2) I'd like to consider going slightly further, and accept submissions
> from non-XSF sources. This would turn the registry from something that,
> really, nobody much uses into a real information source. This, too,
> needs a label.
Is or was there ever there a demand for this? I don't see a requirement
for this. Besides, it adds more workload to the already understaffed (in
terms of active members) Editor/Registrar team. But I'm happy to hear
what others think.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 603 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Standards