On 05/27/2008 11:02 AM, Kevin Smith wrote: > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I'm pretty happy with the way we previously used RECOMMENDED, I think >>> it's a good heads-up that it'll be required the following year. >> Except that sometimes it may not be required, in which case the >> RECOMMENDED is a false alarm. An example might be XEP-0155 in 2008, >> which we expected to lead into ESessions as REQUIRED for 2009 in some >> suite (which now seems unlikely). > > Sure, I'm happy with that as a reason not to do it again :)
Or: we could have a section in each suite about "possible future additions" so that developers have a heads-up, but not make them RECOMMENDED. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
