On 22 Jun 2017, at 22:23, Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 22 June 2017 at 21:49, Sam Whited <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 3:30 AM, Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote: >>> If it really is the name, then let's call it "Stable". >> >> I actually do think that would be very helpful; I can't tell you how >> often random people I'm talking too say "we tried XMPP, but it didn't >> have the feature we wanted" and I say "sure it did, that's XEP-XXXX" >> and they reply "no, that was only draft, and we needed a working >> version right then". Some variation of that is a significant portion >> of conversations I end up having with random people who have tried >> XMPP. > > Names are important, I agree. We picked Draft - I think, it was well > before my time - because that's what the IETF used. It's since ceased > to be used there; they go straight from Proposed Standard to Internet > Standard. > > We could, equally well, go for the same, but if we're picking terms > because of their utility for marketing (and I don't think that's a bad > thing to do) then "Stable" seems the better option. > > It might even be worth having "Unstable", or "Alpha", or something for > Experimental, but I'm not so sure about that. I'd rather imply > "Bleeding Edge" than "Broken”.
If we did change Draft->Stable, does that imply we’d want to actually make them stable (and get rid of Final)? Draft is currently “best effort at stable, but might have to change”. /K _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
