Re: [Standards] Deprecating Message Archiving
On 19 Sep 2016, at 18:09, Florian Schmaus wrote: > I think it's to early to deprecate Message Archiving while MAM is just > experimental. That said, I suggest adding a disclaimer to Message Archiving > stating that new installations should consider MAM instead. I think that while it’s too early to deprecate 136 or not, a disclaimer than MAM is the right thing to be using instead would be sensible. Of course, if we think MAM’s ready to use instead, that probably speaks to advancing it to draft. Let’s start with a notice on 136 saying that we anticipate 313 replacing it. /K > > - Florian > > > On Sep 19, 2016 18:51, "Sam Whited" wrote: > Hi all, > > I was looking at an issue on an XMPP project recently where someone > asked for support for XEP-0136: Message Archiving. As far as I know, > 0136 isn't really used anywhere anymore, and most everyone has > switched over to MAM. Having both XEPs seems like it's just confusing > people. I understand that Message Archiving is draft, and MAM is still > experimental (and that there are probably still outstanding changes > that need to be made), but can we deprecate Message Archiving and > piont people to MAM instead for the sake of reducing confusion? > > It seems poor to recommend Message Archiving (by virtue of it being > draft) when most individuals would recommend MAM, and the entire > community is using it. I don't see a problem with deprecating Message > Archiving while leaving MAM in the experimental state. > > Thoughts? > > —Sam > > > -- > Sam Whited > pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3 > ___ > 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 > ___ ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Deprecating Message Archiving
think the major difference is that there is very likely consensus that a disclaimer should be added to Message Archiving, while I don't think that's also true for deprecating it. I also believe that we should do more to guide users towards the "encouraged" protocols. We have this situation not only for MAM. I'm thankful that you took the initiative here. Let's start by finding a wording for the disclaimer and add the disclaimer to the Message Archiving XEP. We can still deprecate it after this first step is done. - Florian On Sep 19, 2016 22:00, "Sam Whited" wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Florian Schmaus > wrote: > > That said, I suggest adding a disclaimer to Message Archiving > > stating that new installations should consider MAM instead. > > What is the difference between that and just deprecating Message > Archiving? Isn't that effectively what you're doing by adding a > disclaimer? > > New implementations are encouraged to use MAM, and implementations > that specifically need message archiving for some reason will use it > regardless of the disclaimer (or the deprecated status) > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Matthew Wild wrote: > > Agree. Also there are things that XEP-0136 supports that XEP-0313 > > intentionally doesn't, but I've encountered people who really really > > want those things. It has parallels to the XEP-0016 vs. XEP-0191 > > debate :) > > > > In theory you could have both archive protocols accessing the same > > store (with some limitations) > > I don't think deprecating it will stop people who specifically need > those features, it will just stop new implementations that could use > MAM from accidentally implementing an old technology that no one uses. > > In my mind it just comes down to: "What does the XSF want to recommend > for new implementations of `history`?" And I think the answer is > clearly MAM. Having anything else that also appears recommended will > just confuse people. > > —Sam > > > > -- > Sam Whited > pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3 > ___ > 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] Deprecating Message Archiving
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Florian Schmaus wrote: > That said, I suggest adding a disclaimer to Message Archiving > stating that new installations should consider MAM instead. What is the difference between that and just deprecating Message Archiving? Isn't that effectively what you're doing by adding a disclaimer? New implementations are encouraged to use MAM, and implementations that specifically need message archiving for some reason will use it regardless of the disclaimer (or the deprecated status) On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Matthew Wild wrote: > Agree. Also there are things that XEP-0136 supports that XEP-0313 > intentionally doesn't, but I've encountered people who really really > want those things. It has parallels to the XEP-0016 vs. XEP-0191 > debate :) > > In theory you could have both archive protocols accessing the same > store (with some limitations) I don't think deprecating it will stop people who specifically need those features, it will just stop new implementations that could use MAM from accidentally implementing an old technology that no one uses. In my mind it just comes down to: "What does the XSF want to recommend for new implementations of `history`?" And I think the answer is clearly MAM. Having anything else that also appears recommended will just confuse people. —Sam -- Sam Whited pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3 ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Deprecating Message Archiving
On 19 September 2016 at 18:09, Florian Schmaus wrote: > I think it's to early to deprecate Message Archiving while MAM is just > experimental. That said, I suggest adding a disclaimer to Message Archiving > stating that new installations should consider MAM instead. Agree. Also there are things that XEP-0136 supports that XEP-0313 intentionally doesn't, but I've encountered people who really really want those things. It has parallels to the XEP-0016 vs. XEP-0191 debate :) In theory you could have both archive protocols accessing the same store (with some limitations) Regards, Matthew ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Deprecating Message Archiving
I think it's to early to deprecate Message Archiving while MAM is just experimental. That said, I suggest adding a disclaimer to Message Archiving stating that new installations should consider MAM instead. - Florian On Sep 19, 2016 18:51, "Sam Whited" wrote: > Hi all, > > I was looking at an issue on an XMPP project recently where someone > asked for support for XEP-0136: Message Archiving. As far as I know, > 0136 isn't really used anywhere anymore, and most everyone has > switched over to MAM. Having both XEPs seems like it's just confusing > people. I understand that Message Archiving is draft, and MAM is still > experimental (and that there are probably still outstanding changes > that need to be made), but can we deprecate Message Archiving and > piont people to MAM instead for the sake of reducing confusion? > > It seems poor to recommend Message Archiving (by virtue of it being > draft) when most individuals would recommend MAM, and the entire > community is using it. I don't see a problem with deprecating Message > Archiving while leaving MAM in the experimental state. > > Thoughts? > > —Sam > > > -- > Sam Whited > pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3 > ___ > 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 ___
[Standards] Deprecating Message Archiving
Hi all, I was looking at an issue on an XMPP project recently where someone asked for support for XEP-0136: Message Archiving. As far as I know, 0136 isn't really used anywhere anymore, and most everyone has switched over to MAM. Having both XEPs seems like it's just confusing people. I understand that Message Archiving is draft, and MAM is still experimental (and that there are probably still outstanding changes that need to be made), but can we deprecate Message Archiving and piont people to MAM instead for the sake of reducing confusion? It seems poor to recommend Message Archiving (by virtue of it being draft) when most individuals would recommend MAM, and the entire community is using it. I don't see a problem with deprecating Message Archiving while leaving MAM in the experimental state. Thoughts? —Sam -- Sam Whited pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3 ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
