Florian, I think that this reflects what was agreed in Brussels. There were a number of MIX capabilities that it was agreed would go into "add-on XEPs" and the general strategy of keeping the core as the core was agreed.
>From my analysis, the current spec is pretty much all needed for "core". If >there is a useful way to split it, this could be helpful. I can't see a way >to reduce core, but I think we can and should aim to keep new stuff in new >XEPs. Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: Standards [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Florian Schmaus > Sent: 12 March 2017 11:12 > To: XMPP Standards > Subject: [Standards] How about splitting MIX into a baseline XEP and one > profile XEP per use case? > > Given the size of MIX, I wonder if it wouldn't be sensible to split the XEP > into > a baseline XEP and one profile XEP for every use case. > > I do believe that this would lead to smaller XEPs which are easier to review. > > And it would also make it clear which mechanisms and features are provided > by "core" MIX and how they are used for a specific use case profile like > persistent IM groupchats. The discussion whether or not MIX groupchats > would have a subject, topic and/or description, and what being mandatory > would then only be relevant to the "IM groupchat" > MIX-profile XEP. Feels like an advantage, because that question is not > relevant to other MIX use cases. > > And yes, I do have, for example, an idea for a MIX-profile for IoT in mind, > which would IMHO benefit from a split. > > I did the same with the new OpenPGP XEPs (OX, XEP-0373/-0374) and, so far, > I find this favourable over one big monolithic XEP. > > What do you think? > > - Florian _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
