On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 09:00:36AM +0100, Dave Cridland wrote: > On Tue Jul 19 08:09:42 2011, Jacek Konieczny wrote: > >On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 03:23:26PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >> FYI, I've created version 0.0.2 of this ProtoXEP: > >> > >> http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/compliance2012.html > > > >I would prefer the 'Core' term to be left for the XMPP Core. XMPP > >is not > >IM only, and 'Core server' seems a good name for an entity witch > >implements only RFC 6120 (which is already 'XMPP Core') and RFC 6122 > >(required by 6120) – that is good enough for some non-IM > >communication > >purposes. This does not need to be defined in a XEP. > > > >I thought it was 'basic client' and 'basic server' in the > >XEP-242,243, > >but now I see it was already 'core'. Though, I think it still can be > >changed in the new XEPs. > > We switched to Core/Advanced some time back, when I was on Council. > I pushed for the change, and asked Will (Sheward) to come up with > new names. > > The problem is that - and I admit this hasn't really happened - > these compliance XEPs are worthless unless they're used by > implementers, consultants, and consumers to indicate high-level > functionality, and nobody wanted to describe their server, for > instance, as "Basic" in their marketing literature. (And by > "marketing literature", I include open-source project websites, for > the avoidance of doubt). > > "Core" is a much more palatable term to use, and "Advanced" is > obviously just fine.
Right. This is more about marketing than technology. "Core" and "Advanced" is fine with me. I also think that 2012 might be the year for us to define a "Media" suite for clients > However, neither term has really caught on, and the XSF is not using > it internally, even. If we choose to publish this document, I think > we should consider adding implementer compliance statements to the > software lists, to promote their use. I'd be happy to work on a > specification to allow that, as well as (with my Isode hat on) > provide such a statement. > > My plan would be that implementers would host an XML description of > their compliance levels, which the XSF's software listings would > consume and render into the software list. This would mean that most > changes (latest version, Core/Advanced, XEPs) would be > implementer-driven. > > If there is interest, I'll sketch this out in more detail. Sounds intriguing. /psa
