Yes, you are right Christian. I think that maybe the editor team will create some script that might reveal some of our XEPs that need to be updated into new states etc.
/Steffen On 28 Feb 2014, at 09:10, Christian Schudt <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I always like up to date documents and specifications. So I vote yes :-) > > In my opinion, there are (too) many "last-updated-2004" documents. (or at > least mid-2000s) > Or generally documents, which are really long in Draft state. (XEP-0001 says > it can become Final after 6 months in Draft and 2 implementations, which > probably apply to most XEPs) > > Or documents which feel strange, when reading them, e.g. > XEP-0270 vs XEP-0302, which imply that XMPP isn't moving much since 2010. > > Christian > > > Am 28.02.2014 um 01:24 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre: > >> Old, nay ancient, thread alert! >> >> On 9/17/12, 2:31 PM, Philipp Hancke wrote: >>> While searching for the design guideline that says "don't put big things >>> inside a presence stanza, use PEP" I found XEP-0134 and it almost had >>> what I was looking for: >>> >>>> Finally, as explained in XMPP Core, the <presence/> stanza exists to >>>> broadcast network and communications availability only; for more >>>> advanced information publishing, use Publish-Subscribe [7]. >>> >>> This is somewhat outdated, you'd use PEP for that. There are several >>> other points where this is outdated. How comes nobody ever noticed that >>> (Peter has an excuse -- he was expecting feedback)? >>> >>> My effort may be in vain since google doesn't seem to consider 0134 to >>> be important but I'll raise (some of) the issues anyway. Specifically: >>> 2.1: XMPP is Sacred >>> well, it's a hard process, but making changes is possible. >>> The reference to XEP-0060 ought to be replaced by one to 0163 >>> obviously. >>> >>> 2.2: how long has groupchat been deprecated? 8 years at least? Doesn't >>> strike me as a good example these days. >>> >>> 2.3: jingle/ice might be a better example. >>> >>> 2.4.: oh, this section still calls it "Jabber" :-) >>> >>> 2.5: again, jingle would be a better example. >>> >>> Generally, i think this document is really 2004! Alot has changed since >>> then. XEP-0115 (in it's current revision) certainly impacts the design >>> of new extensions, as does PEP. Are things like SI (XEP-0095) still >>> relevant? >> >> Yes, that document is probably well out of date now. Do we feel it would be >> worth the effort to bring it into the modern world? >> >> Peter >> >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
