In the W3, they publish in the internal working groups multiple versions of specs for a standard that then hash it out. I think we need a similar process.
I think we need a more organized approach to developing complex XEPs. On 8/15/07 4:01 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Boyd Fletcher wrote: >> >> On 8/15/07 1:54 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Dave Cridland wrote: >>>> as an >>>> experimental protocol, >>> Unlike the IETF, we don't have the concept of an "Experimental" spec. >>> The closest we come is Informational specs. More here: >>> >>> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0001.html#types >>> >>> We could always add another XEP type if needed, though. >> >> >> +1 for adding a new XEP type. > > People are already confused enough by Informational and Historical XEPs. > I don't think a new Experimental type will help matters. In fact it will > just muddy the waters even further. > > The XSF is a standards development organization. We're supposed to be > developing standards. If people want to publish the results of their > experiments on their own websites as input to the XSF's standards > development process, they are free to do so. But as far as I can see, > nothing in the XSF's mission or bylaws dictates that such experiments > deserve to be published by the XSF. > > Peter
