On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > 2) Carbons will need some changes in the (hopefully near) future once the > pubsub/account stuff is specced/we have deployment experience. I believe this > means that going to Draft now wouldn’t be appropriate, as knowing there will > be backwards-incompatible changes is at odds with the Draft requirement of > avoiding such things where possible.
I'm skeptical that this will happen in the (hopefully near) future. We should not hold back a spec from advancing IMO because of some vague idea that it might need to be changed later. If we stopped advancing all XEPs that might need changes to make them comptaible with some as-yet-undefined future spec, no XEP would ever be able to move forwards. This isn't a personal dig at Kevin, but a general observation of the many times I've seen statements like this used in standards bodies, or privately for architecture decisions and the like at places I've worked: It's just a stalling tactic used to halt a discussion without requiring any actual citation or reference material (an actual spec, or even work on an actual spec, for which carbons needs to be changed). Put a document on the table, and then I'll probably agree with the above. —Sam -- Sam Whited pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3 https://blog.samwhited.com
