> On 14 Mar 2018, at 17:29, Jonas Wielicki (XSF Editor) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > The XEP Editor would like to Call for Experience with XEP-0122 before > presenting it to the Council for advancing it to Final status. > > > During the Call for Experience, please answer the following questions: > > 1. What software has XEP-0122 implemented? Please note that the > protocol must be implemented in at least two separate codebases (at > least one of which must be free or open-source software) in order to > advance from Draft to Final.
We don’t (we got as far as implementing it in Swiften, but haven’t merged). > 2. Have developers experienced any problems with the protocol as > defined in XEP-0122? If so, please describe the problems and, if > possible, suggested solutions. I think 4.5 might be up for question. > 3. Is the text of XEP-0122 clear and unambiguous? Are more examples > needed? Is the conformance language (MAY/SHOULD/MUST) appropriate? > Have developers found the text confusing at all? Please describe any > suggestions you have for improving the text. The SHOULD NOT on ‘x:’ types seems unnecessarily heavy, especially as fallback is specified in 4.1. The ‘shall’ specify basic seems inconsistent with saying that it’s option. Only ‘should’ match the data type for basic seems odd, especially as it’s almost immediately followed with a must. The various points that extensions are prohibited (must be empty) seems inconsistent with the usual ‘extend anywhere’ XMPPishness. I think the SHOULD on using namespace prefixes is probably ill-advised (can the people who say they’ve implemented 122 confirm that they do this?). /K _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
