On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 at 10:13, Severino Ferrer de la Peñita <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Monday, March 4, 2019 5:42:24 AM CET Ненахов Андрей wrote: > > I think that the whole idea of making compliance suites as a xep is > flawed > > and creates unnecessary bureaucracy for bureaucracy sake. > > > > It could have been just a page on xmpp.org website, listing XEPs that > > council currently consideres part of a compliance suites. No bureaucracy, > > no need to update them every year, win-win for everyone. > > > > If someone won't be happy with just a current list, well, add versions to > > it, in the simplest way possible. > > I've been asked this a couple of times as well, why the compliance suite > is > not a page at xmpp.org with the current situation instead of a XEP. > People usually assume XEPs are protocol specifications to be implemented. > People are wrong. :-) The XEPs are our formal documents, and contain not just protocol specifications but any document that has general consensus and formal approval of the XMPP Standards Foundation. We have no other process for making that happen, and I'm really loathe to put ourselves in a position where we need to create a new process in order to manage a new type of document. We cannot, certainly, claim to be an "Open Standards" group if we don't have an open process for changing a document. But if people want the compliance suites to be on the front page of the website, I'm all for linking them there. We can (and have, several times) altered the formatting of XEPs to make them more approachable - most of the boilerplate now lives at the end of the documents in appendices, for example. If someone want to provide some new CSS/XSLT to improve the formatting, I'm all in favour. Dave.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
