On 22.06.2017 10:30, Dave Cridland wrote: > On 21 June 2017 at 17:44, Sam Whited <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Daniel Gultsch <[email protected]> wrote: >>> XEP-0001. We have countless - very essential - stuck in >>> very low ranks like experimental and draft. This leads to developers >>> implementing (and deploying to large user bases) experimental and >>> draft XEPs (which they are not really supposed to) which in turn leads >>> the XSF enforce higher standards for experimental XEPs. >>> >>> The deduplication Sam mentions for example is only supposed to happen >>> when something moves to draft. >> >> That's a good point; you're right, things lingering in experimental is >> the only reason duplicates in experimental are bad. This is the more >> fundamental issue to some of the things I mentioned. >> >> Although I'd also note that draft XEPs are okay to implement widely >> and are not "low rank". This is a separate problem though; the fact >> that its named "draft" makes everyone think that, including some council >> members and people involved in the process (I still have the "I >> shouldn't implement that in prod, it's just a draft" as a gut reaction >> after all this time). > > If it really is the name, then let's call it "Stable".
+1 for s/Draft/Stable/. - Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
