On 12/22/2014 10:21 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > Also bear in mind that XEP-0191 was designed to be a simple replacement to > XEP-0016, the observation being that with the exception of some extremely > rare cases, everything people actually used XEP-0016 for could be wrapped > up into XEP-0191 and XEP-0186
I don't get this impression reading XEP-0191; all that stuff about it being a frontend for XEP-0016, and mappings between the two, etc. However, I do agree that this is how it SHOULD be. Maybe putting it forward as a means to obsolete XEP-0016 (which in my opinion is overengineered and has little to no real use)? On 12/22/2014 10:46 AM, Holger Weiß wrote: > Maybe we just have to admit that a sane mapping isn't possible, so > those two extensions would have to be treated as unrelated and > incompatible? Also agreed. Even if everyone is opposed to obsoleting XEP-0016, maybe 0191 should just be separated and treated as a separate entity; there just isn't a good way to make it a "simpler frontend" for 0016. —Sam -- Sam Whited pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3 https://blog.samwhited.com
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
