I don't think that this is necessarily always true. And I always find it strange to find unimplementable XEPs in experimental (IIRC PAM and FMUC where or are still examples).
That's why I've been advocating for a long time a new state before experimental for ProtoXEPs I call 'incubating'. Just like other XEPs, IPR for them is already handled and they get a canonical URL where a rendered version of their latest state is available. But unlike (experimental) XEPs, breaking changes would not require a namespace bump, they don't have a number assigned and no registry entries are added. - Florian On Aug 31, 2017 16:53, "Peter Saint-Andre" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8/31/17 7:49 AM, Guus der Kinderen wrote: > > > > > > On 31 August 2017 at 15:37, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > On 8/31/17 1:59 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > > > On 30 August 2017 at 21:32, Daniel Gultsch <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >> 2017-08-30 22:10 GMT+02:00 Paul Schaub <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>: > > >>> First things first: My intention for submitting JET to the XSF > inbox was > > >>> to get some comments and first feedback in order to discover > caveats and > > >>> pitfalls in the protocol. > > >>> By no means I'd consider JET ready to be implemented or accepted > :D > > >> > > >> OK. Fair enough. I think what people usually do at this stage is > > >> render the XEP themselves, put it up somewhere and show it around > to > > >> get some feedback. That way you don't trigger council action and > it is > > >> way easier to make changes because you don't have to go through > the > > >> editor. > > >> > > > > > > This is getting a bit meta, but the reason I really dislike that is > > > that you're asking people to work on protocol stuff outside the IPR > > > policy of the XSF. This exposes people implementing, or > discussing, to > > > all sorts of legal shenanigans that are somewhat mitigated by the > > > copyright assignment in submission. > > > > > > If there's something preventing this, we really need to fix it. > > > > There is: the Council blocking publication of XEPs. Publish the > thing, > > get it into XSF processes, and work on the spec in the right way. > Ship > > and iterate! > > > > Which has been improved upon greatly in the past few weeks! I'm hoping > > that we can keep that up, and improve where needed. > > I realize people voiced a concern with not being able to develop to the > spec right away. That's why it's 0.1. Coders aren't stupid, they realize > that 0.1 means it's early days. If they run into ambiguities, they'll > provide feedback on the list. > > Peter > > > > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > >
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
