Am Mi., 6. Nov. 2019 um 13:45 Uhr schrieb Georg Lukas <ge...@op-co.de>:
>
> * Kevin Smith <kevin.sm...@isode.com> [2019-11-06 12:24]:
> > I think the addition of ’66 is well-intentioned, but jabber:x:oob 
> > <jabber:x:oob> is underspecified (it defines a syntax, but semantics are 
> > missing).
>
> I agree, but nobody has written down the semantics yet, so there is no
> place to link to. On the other hand, this approach seems to be so widely
> used (despite me hating it), that it would be bad _not_ to tell
> developers about it at all.

I think there is a broader discussion buried in there and that is do
we want the Compliance Suite to be a guide for developers of the
publicly federating XMPP network or for independent developers who
just want to build their own solution based on XMPP.
The former may find information regarding the current-but arguably not
very ideal-solution useful. The later will find that utterly confusing
and would prefer a 'clean' solution.

Not that 0066 is just one example were this problem manifests itself.

Previous iterations of the Compliance Suite had less friction points
with those two potentially different audiences.

My general thought is to - until we are clear on who the audience of
the compliance suite is - not include information that can be
confusing to either one.

cheers
Daniel
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
_______________________________________________

Reply via email to