On 27 Sep 2017, at 15:08, Sam Whited wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017, at 02:08, Kevin Smith wrote:
>> Are they not then going to be upset if there are backwards-incompatible
>> changes in a new namespace? We try not to do that in Draft XEPs, but
>> that’s the reason they’re
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017, at 02:08, Kevin Smith wrote:
> Are they not then going to be upset if there are backwards-incompatible
> changes in a new namespace? We try not to do that in Draft XEPs, but
> that’s the reason they’re Draft rather than Final, to give us that
> option.
"Stableish"?
—Sam
On 26 Sep 2017, at 20:35, Sam Whited wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017, at 14:19, Ivan Vučica wrote:
>> And now, to bikeshed a bit on the proposed naming: To a casual reader,
>> stable has similar implications as final. Especially if said reader is
>> used to Debian's use of
On 26 September 2017 at 20:19, Ivan Vučica wrote:
> And now, to bikeshed a bit on the proposed naming: To a casual reader,
> stable has similar implications as final. Especially if said reader is used
> to Debian's use of the word.
I think to developers, the two *do* have
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 6:57 PM Sam Whited wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017, at 12:37, Ivan Vučica wrote:
> >
> > On 26 September 2017 at 14:47:27, Sam Whited (s...@samwhited.com) wrote:
> >
> > As others have said, the real naming problem is "draft". We can't
> > actively
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017, at 12:37, Ivan Vučica wrote:
>
> On 26 September 2017 at 14:47:27, Sam Whited (s...@samwhited.com) wrote:
>
> As others have said, the real naming problem is "draft". We can't
> actively advance draft as much (since final really is final and can't be
> touched ever again)
>
On 26 September 2017 at 14:47:27, Sam Whited (s...@samwhited.com) wrote:
As others have said, the real naming problem is "draft". We can't
actively advance draft as much (since final really is final and can't be
touched ever again)
Is that a bad thing?
Conversely, is it a good thing that
Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:22:17 +0200
Goffi wrote:
> I've seen that there was a need
> to get disco items in XEP-0355. I've tried to update my Prosody
> implementation and Pubsub component to test it, and now that I see
> it's working, I want to update the XEP.
I actually found the
On Dienstag, 26. September 2017 09:47:10 CEST Sam Whited wrote:
> As others have said, the real naming problem is "draft". We can't
> actively advance draft as much (since final really is final and can't be
> touched ever again), so renaming it to something else ("Stable" sounds
> good to me)
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017, at 06:15, Dave Cridland wrote:
> > Should we rename the status names that we use in XEPs? One of the recurring
> > criticisms about XMPP that I read is "Pretty-standard-feature XYZ has a XEP
> > that is only "experimental"! By doing some window dressing, we will improve
> >
On 26.09.2017 15:38, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 9/26/17 5:15 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
>> On 26 September 2017 at 10:03, Guus der Kinderen
>> wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> Should we rename the status names that we use in XEPs? One of the recurring
>>> criticisms
On 9/26/17 5:15 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On 26 September 2017 at 10:03, Guus der Kinderen
> wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Should we rename the status names that we use in XEPs? One of the recurring
>> criticisms about XMPP that I read is "Pretty-standard-feature XYZ
Le mardi 26 septembre 2017, 13:15:57 CEST Dave Cridland a écrit :
> On 26 September 2017 at 10:03, Guus der Kinderen
>
> wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > Should we rename the status names that we use in XEPs? One of the
> > recurring
> > criticisms about XMPP that I
On 26 September 2017 at 10:03, Guus der Kinderen
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Should we rename the status names that we use in XEPs? One of the recurring
> criticisms about XMPP that I read is "Pretty-standard-feature XYZ has a XEP
> that is only "experimental"! By doing
* Guus der Kinderen [2017-09-26 11:06]:
> By doing some window dressing, we will improve the perceived maturity
> and stability of the protocol.
Absolutely +1.
MUC is 15 years old, and it's still in "Draft". We really need better
names (though we probably need to
Hello all,
Should we rename the status names that we use in XEPs? One of the recurring
criticisms about XMPP that I read is "Pretty-standard-feature XYZ has a XEP
that is only "experimental"! By doing some window dressing, we will improve
the perceived maturity and stability of the protocol.
16 matches
Mail list logo