> On Sep 1, 2017 10:55, "Florian Schmaus" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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'.
On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 11:19:29AM +0200, Daniel Gultsch wrote: > What you are describing as incubating can be experimental. But in that case > we need to bump XEPs to draft sooner to differentiate it properly. Perhaps a different warning if the protocol is not yet considered implementable? -- Zash _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
