Agreed, There's been way more XMPP mailing list discussion over massively bigger changes during Draft stage. As a primary author, I can't prevent people from raising a fuss over minor nitpicks that's unrelated to standards.\
Even many XMPP mailing list people think that the XEP-0301 standard already includes the Kitchen Sink, and some people want to add a second Kitchen Sink. Thanks, Mark Rejhon On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden <[email protected]>wrote: > Agree > > clean up and editorial things you see that are quick and likely to get > noticed (typos) (to keep people from all mentioning them on last call) and > get it out. > > ALSO do anything that you think someone else might think of as substatial > later (so you don't have to repeat last call after you do them) If there > are any > > > and send it to last call. > > *Gregg* > -------------------------------------------------------- > Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D. > Director Trace R&D Center > Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering > and Biomedical Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison > Technical Director - Cloud4all Project - http://Cloud4all.info > Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International - > http://Raisingthefloor.org > and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project - http://GPII.net > > On Apr 19, 2013, at 8:29 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > The issues that Gunnar is raising are all "tidying up" issues. Existing > problems in implementations today are caused by not complying with stuff > already in the spec for several versions. The spec is pretty complete > as-is. I re-read XMPP's website and they are all in that category. It's > really down to nitpicks at this stage. > > Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Smith <[email protected]> > Sender: [email protected] > Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:16:04 > To: XMPP Standards<[email protected]> > Reply-To: [email protected], XMPP Standards <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 (In-Band Real Time Text) - review > observations > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Gunnar Hellstrom > <[email protected]> wrote: > > We are clearly down > to issues where it would be better to take it through last call. > > > Ignoring everything else as I've not found time to read the thread > yet, I'll point out that up until LC the authors are free to edit the > document as they please - this stops being true once it's been LCd. > For it to get to Draft it's going to need to have the open issues > cleared up (i.e. knowing there are open issues and "We're intending > further developing it in 2014" is a reason to not send it to Draft > IMO), and once Draft all changes have to go through Council. Changes > /can/ be made to Draft XEPs, but other than tidying of things found in > deployment it needs to by and large remain the same. > > /K > > >
