All this phrasing of "levels of cert." leads me to think of something in the order of Bronze,Silver,Gold,Plat. certs.
Personaly I chose clients based on the fact that it covers my limited needs in a easy to use form. Now I know different people have different ideas of useable, so that's not something you can grade, but could you not just say that Client XYZ is 95% XMPP core + 100% JEP-12342223, JEP-2342345563 compliant.
So that's a certification for XMPP core + certs for each seperate JEP. A friendly table at this point would be good :)
So basic IM clients/libs/servers could get the certs that refrlect why they were created instead of being classed as inferior due to the fact that they do 1-2 things very well instead of 10 things done okay. Some of us like minimal software.
Natasha Live.
Hal Rottenberg wrote:
On 5/13/05, Heiner Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It is true that users who hit jabber.org for the first time need
guidance. Most want a single simple download link. On the other hand
offering only one or two clients is unfair for the other developers.
Therefore we have a long list with the box at the top of the page as a
compromise. A certification makes it more fair, although probably not
better. A certification must not be easy to achieve. Otherwise we get a
large list of certified clients, servers, etc.
True. This is why we would have multiple levels of certs. Base is XMPP. If someone is looking for file transfer support, that would mean a client certified at the "foo" level, and there would be fewer to choose from.
I would probably not certify clients, but rather select distinguished
projects. At most one or two per category. I have no idea and even less
time to work on certification rules. This makes it difficult for me to
vote pro certification. But I would support some kind of selection of
distinguished projects.
That's exactly what the "Official JSF Project" idea is for.
_______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
