On Tue Jun 3 18:11:37 2008, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 05/29/2008 5:10 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> 1) I talked to Isode's marketing department, and the consensus
was that
> having "Basic" and "Intermediate" doesn't make much sense. Having
> "Standard" and "Advanced" is likely to get more buy-in - nobody
wants to
> call themselves Basic (It sounds like "Rubbish"), and Intermediate
> implies an Advanced somewhere. (The goal here would be that
Standard is
> relatively easy for newcomers to get to, Advanced is where we want
> everyone to get to soon - inserting an Intermediate is okay
later).
Ah yes it's all about marketing. :)
Does "standard" make it sound like anything else is "non-standard"?
How
about "core" and "advanced"?
Core-blimey!
Ahem.
I'll ask, but that sounds reasonable to me.
> 2) Also from our marketing dept: It's only a certification level
if
> there's a certificate. Compliance levels are okay, even without
formal
> compliance testing.
What exactly is a certificate? A piece of paper or a little icon
that
you slap on your website or something else?
Paper was mentioned, and for some strange reason so was cake. I'm not
sure why. But the primary reason for certification would be a
trustable brand - something that says something other than "Isode
likes to say we meet this". In practise this would be a trademark
held by the XSF and licensed as per this document.
We won't have formal compliance testing anytime soon I think, but
if we
put some effort into the interop network then we can at least have
something stronger than mere self-reports if you can't be certified
without participating there.
That might work - we could introduce voting inside the interop
network or something. But meanwhile, there is no certification
procedure worth calling same.
> 3) In other news, I'm still not sure about In-Band Registration
being
> required anywhere. It's not because it's hard to do, it's because
I
> don't think it's worth having a required feature that won't be
needed
> nor used by the vast majority of deployments. I can see it's a
good plan
> for public servers, of course.
Is it still in the client suites? I thought I had removed it from
the
server suites.
I meant the server suites - having it required in the client suites
is fine by me, actually, since it's useful to promote XMPP uptake.
(Equally, server implementors wishing to target the public XMPP
server market will probably want to have In-band Reg support, but
that's another matter).
It's required for Intermediate IM Server.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
