I'd have to agree with Iain.
I think it would be good to see how two different implementations solved the problem of implementing the common protocol/features. However, it would be nice if one group got stuck on a design problem and they could look at how it was solved by the other group.
> --- Jay Lorenzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One thing I'd like to throw out here is the possibility of using a
> > common
> > design with the Jabelin folks. I think we may be best served by
> > participating in the design process with the Jabelin folks, which I
> > believe
> > is just starting this process. We may want to consider
> having a 'subsig'
> > under Jabelin, using an 'org.jabber' namespace.
>
> I actually think it would better serve the Jabber
> community if the two servers were developed
> independently. One of the more interesting things
> I'd be looking for is what is implementaton specific
> and what is standard Jabber. This has been
> exceedingly difficult to determine with just jabberd.
> Something very different in implmentation could be
> extremely useful...
>
> -iain
