On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote:
> > There is an argument that such recommendations might be included > within the body of the text, but I think if pulled out, or at least > summarized within a section, then developers who (sensibly) have used > an existing library will be able to easily read the section for useful > advice, without being bogged down with the minutiae of implementation. > Well. I imagine there was a reason the IETF thought that "Security Considerations" deserve a dedicated section compared to just describing that inline in the other sections. > > I would argue, though, that any use of RFC 2119 language in such a > section would be a bad idea. Trying to tie "conformance" into > usability considerations would leave us with some very odd cases. True. I'm at odds here with the right solution. The current situation is that every developer is supposed to think themselves about how to provide the best UX for their users, and what interoperability consequences their UX decisions have. While this certainly could work, it currently doesn't, and results in a lot of redundant UX research for each developer. Ideally I'd like to move to a situation where developers can find helpful in the XEP, if the author and/or the community came to a useful conclusion on a good UX related to the XEP at hand. Tobi
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
