> On 3/6/12 2:53 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: > > I also think that technically, this XEP should be "deprecated" rather > > than "obsoleted" - it is out of date, rather than wrong. > On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 03:01:50PM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > Changing the status of a XEP to Obsolete does mean the protocol is > wrong, it means that you shouldn't implement the spec. In the case of > XEPs 237, 192, 193, and 190 (all changed to Obsolete recently), we're > saying you shouldn't implement the spec because the proper documentation > is now in the RFCs (these XEPs were used only for the purpose of
which is inaccurate.. 0190 isn't wrong, so you shouldn't obsolete it. you just confirmed dave's point.
