2017-08-30 18:11 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland <[email protected]>: > I agree that it's probably underspecified, but to my eyes these were > fixable problems, and moreover fixable problems that people were > likely to fix. > > Do you think there's something fundamentally unfixable about the approach?
No not necessarily. It boils down to how good does a XEP have to be to be accepted as Experimental. This is somewhat fuzzy and council has made a lots of different decisions in that regard. As a client developer I would expect to run into or discover problems when trying to implement an experimental XEP - that's fine. But with that particular XEP I wouldn't even know how to start implementing it. The XEP tries to be agnostic but then mentions (and not just in the examples) explicit encryption methods which is at the very least bad style. I would like to see at least some kind of wording that makes me belief that an encryption agnostic file transfer is even possible in just one XEP (instead of having JET + JET OMEMO + JET OX + …) I'm happy to vote +1 at a later point when that XEP has progressed a little bit. cheers Daniel _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
