Re: [Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers

2017-09-27 Thread Kevin Smith
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

Re: [Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers

2017-09-27 Thread Sam Whited
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

Re: [Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers

2017-09-27 Thread Kevin Smith
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

Re: [Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers

2017-09-27 Thread Dave Cridland
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

Re: [Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers

2017-09-26 Thread Ivan Vučica
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

Re: [Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers

2017-09-26 Thread Sam Whited
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) >

Re: [Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers

2017-09-26 Thread Ivan Vučica
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

Re: [Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers

2017-09-26 Thread Evgeny Khramtsov
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

Re: [Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers

2017-09-26 Thread Jonas Wielicki
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)

Re: [Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers

2017-09-26 Thread Sam Whited
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 > >

Re: [Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers

2017-09-26 Thread Florian Schmaus
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

Re: [Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers

2017-09-26 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
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

Re: [Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers

2017-09-26 Thread Goffi
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

Re: [Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers

2017-09-26 Thread Dave Cridland
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

Re: [Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers

2017-09-26 Thread Georg Lukas
* 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

[Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers

2017-09-26 Thread Guus der Kinderen
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.