On 28.03.2018 13:37, Kevin Smith wrote: >> 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. >> 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.
I have a hard time determining the places in the XEP you are possibly referring to. Could you pleaes give us some pointers? > The various points that extensions are prohibited (must be empty) seems > inconsistent with the usual ‘extend anywhere’ XMPPishness. Related: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/613 - Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
