Re: [Standards] Very Simple Questions about Compliance Suites
On 9/4/20 11:06 AM, Andrew Nenakhov wrote: > […] if you really > want a compliance suite, you shouldn't pollute the list of extensions > with this day-to-day bureaucracy, but simply publish a 'compliance > suite' page on https://xmpp.org/compliance/ URL and update it when > necessary. You get persistent link, standards are not bloated, no need > to retract anything. Easy, simple, clean. You can even have past > versions of compliance suites there for archive purposes! I support this suggestion. - Florian signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Very Simple Questions about Compliance Suites
We don't really care. In part, because we have implemented far too many extensions that are necessary to provide speedy work on iOS/web platforms, some of which outright replace the ones listed in those suites, and, in part, because the XEPs are lately grossly misused by the XSF, being used now for various silly purposes like "Special Interests Group End to End Encryption" and "compliance suites" (a special mention goes to a person who thought it would be a good idea to publish new compliance suite every year.). I understand that boy with a hammer treats everything as a nail, but come on: if you really want a compliance suite, you shouldn't pollute the list of extensions with this day-to-day bureaucracy, but simply publish a 'compliance suite' page on https://xmpp.org/compliance/ URL and update it when necessary. You get persistent link, standards are not bloated, no need to retract anything. Easy, simple, clean. You can even have past versions of compliance suites there for archive purposes! ср, 2 сент. 2020 г. в 20:25, Dave Cridland : > > Hey all, > > Really simple questions, so please do reply and answer: > > If you have an XMPP product or public project, do you claim compliance with > XEP-0423? > > If you do not claim compliance, are you aiming for compliance with XEP-0423? > > Dave. > ___ > Standards mailing list > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org > ___ -- Andrew Nenakhov CEO, redsolution, OÜ https://redsolution.com ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Very Simple Questions about Compliance Suites
On 2020/09/02, Tedd Sterr wrote: > I suspect their main benefit, rather than for implementations to claim some > level of compliance, is as a guide to which features are in use across the > ecosystem, and therefore worthwhile to implement. As federation requires > overlapping feature-sets, this neatly answers the question: "if there are 440 > XEPs, which ones am I meant to implement - surely not all of them?!" This ^ I don't particularly aim for compliance with poezio or anything else XMPP I have a hand on. I came to the conclusion compliance suites are not actually interesting apart for what Tedd said. See also: https://bouah.net/2020/07/what-about-design/ TL;DR: I think we'd need a lot more profiles for all the various design guidelines out there and that's certainly not the role of the XSF to dictate what e.g. Snikket wants to do. -- Maxime “pep” Buquet signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Very Simple Questions about Compliance Suites
* Dave Cridland [2020-09-02 17:27]: > If you have an XMPP product or public project, do you claim compliance with > XEP-0423? I'd love to claim yaxim's compliance with Core IM and Advanced Mobile, but can't due to a lack of badges. I'm not sure what the marketing effect of such compliance badges will be for individual implementations, but listing them in implementation lists like https://xmpp.org/software/clients.html will surely make it easier for users to not end up with outdated implementations that have 2005-level XMPP support. Georg signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Very Simple Questions about Compliance Suites
On 02.09.20 17:23, Dave Cridland wrote: Hey all, Really simple questions, so please do reply and answer: If you have an XMPP product or public project, do you claim compliance with XEP-0423? Converse is about 80% compliant. https://github.com/conversejs/converse.js/issues/1398 I think the lack of compliance badges is a bigger issue than some people might think. On Github/Gitlab badges is the main way in which projects quickly communicate their features, and I believe in this case they would provide a form of peer pressure which will motivate some projects (like ours) to get 100% compliance in order to show a shiny badge. Also, without the badges, I suspect that most people are blissfully unaware of the compliance suites and/or whether they're supported by a particular project. If you do not claim compliance, are you aiming for compliance with XEP-0423? It would be nice to have 100% compliance, but I'm not motivated to spend the time on it. Especially if there isn't an easy way to brag about it (*cough* badges *cough*). ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Very Simple Questions about Compliance Suites
Am Mittwoch, den 02.09.2020, 16:23 +0100 schrieb Dave Cridland: > Hey all, > > Really simple questions, so please do reply and answer: > > If you have an XMPP product or public project, do you claim > compliance with XEP-0423? > > If you do not claim compliance, are you aiming for compliance with > XEP-0423? Yes, this is clear indication of what is considered to modern features (among 400+ extensions) so it's a good tangible goal for development alone. Plus it gives possibility for users to raise issues for non-compliance (or missing features from the compliance) which they gladly do. Compliance tool (thanks to Daniel et al.) makes it even more tangible and together with xmpp observatory they make a good pair of badges to achieve. Even though compliance tool is far from being complete representation of the 0432. Variety of compliance standards though makes it a bit less motivating, as one can say - ok, i'm probably not 2020 compliant because it just reached 2019 compliance and it's still good enough for me. --rr ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Very Simple Questions about Compliance Suites
I suspect their main benefit, rather than for implementations to claim some level of compliance, is as a guide to which features are in use across the ecosystem, and therefore worthwhile to implement. As federation requires overlapping feature-sets, this neatly answers the question: "if there are 440 XEPs, which ones am I meant to implement - surely not all of them?!" ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Very Simple Questions about Compliance Suites
The year I revamped the compliance suites I went to a presentation at FOSDEM where the Telepathy folks (I think? Might have been libpurple) were discussing adding features to make themselves compatible. I don't think anyone advertises support, but we haven't given them a way to do so. End users don't care about the compliance suites, but they might care about a "compatible with other things that also have this badge" badge. On the other hand, though my evidence is entirely anecdotal and just from seeing presentations and getting emails, client developers do seem to care. The compatibility suites, even without us pushing them or advertising them heavily, have advanced the state of the art and gotten people to implement XEPs they otherwise wouldn't. —Sam On Wed, Sep 2, 2020, at 11:23, Dave Cridland wrote: > Hey all, > > Really simple questions, so please do reply and answer: > > If you have an XMPP product or public project, do you claim compliance > with XEP-0423? > > If you do not claim compliance, are you aiming for compliance with > XEP-0423? > > Dave. > ___ > Standards mailing list Info: > https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: Standards- > unsubscr...@xmpp.org > ___ > -- Sam Whited ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Very Simple Questions about Compliance Suites
We have not, for Openfire. We've never had anyone ask us if the product has a particular level of compliance either. That's not to say that there is no interest, but I believe there's not much interest, at least not in our community. I'd be happy to start including compliance claims, but, especially given that this all was very much a moving target over the last decade or so, it feels more like an administrative chore than something that'd add much value. I'm seeing more value in (online) test frameworks, that provide feedback of the realtime state of a particular instance of the server. We _do_ get questions about those from our users. - Guus On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 at 18:08, Thilo Molitor wrote: > > If you have an XMPP product or public project, do you claim compliance > with > > XEP-0423? > > For Monal we are aiming for compliance in the long run. > > - tmolitor > > > ___ > Standards mailing list > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org > ___ > ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Very Simple Questions about Compliance Suites
Hi, we evaluated Gajim's comliance [1] according to XEP-0423. Gajim seems to meet the requirements to be a 'Core Client' in the 'XMPP IM Compliance Suite'. In order for Gajim to meet the requirements of 'Advanced Client', support for XEP-0410 (MUC Self Ping) would need to be implemented. We're looking forward to advertise this level of compliance, but sadly there are no badges yet. Kind regards, Daniel Brötzmann (wurstsalat) [1] https://dev.gajim.org/gajim/gajim/-/issues/9971 Am 2. September 2020 17:23:34 MESZ schrieb Dave Cridland : >Hey all, > >Really simple questions, so please do reply and answer: > >If you have an XMPP product or public project, do you claim compliance >with >XEP-0423? > >If you do not claim compliance, are you aiming for compliance with >XEP-0423? > >Dave. ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Very Simple Questions about Compliance Suites
> If you have an XMPP product or public project, do you claim compliance with > XEP-0423? For Monal we are aiming for compliance in the long run. - tmolitor ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
[Standards] Very Simple Questions about Compliance Suites
Hey all, Really simple questions, so please do reply and answer: If you have an XMPP product or public project, do you claim compliance with XEP-0423? If you do not claim compliance, are you aiming for compliance with XEP-0423? Dave. ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
