Sorry this is last minute, but here are some thoughts: 1. The Last Call questions aren't really appropriate because usual-argument-about-compliance-suites-not-really-belonging-in-standards-track.
2. I know the idea is to get it out of the way before change of Council, but it still feels too early. 3. Core Suite, Core Client, Core Server, Core features, core core core core core! I think we need another word, if only to make talking about things clearer. Given that all of the other suites require and build upon the Core Suite as a base, it makes sense to rename it to "Base Compliance Suite" (or similar.) 4. The original version (XEP-0242/0243) had two simple categories, Core and Advanced, and that was all; later versions just continued with that. The IM Suite, especially, is becoming quite top-heavy, so adding a middle level would be good - but what to call it? Instead of names, how about simply Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 - right now that would map Core to Level 1 and Advanced to Level 3, then a subset of Level 3 could make up Level 2. Note that not all Suites require 3 levels (or even 2 in the case of Web). [This also fits nicely with a compliance badge design idea I have.] 5. The tables could also be simplified from several columns (particularly if organised into levels): as everything in Core (Level 1) is a requirement for Advanced (Level 2 or 3), sectioning the tables (thick lines to separate) would allow one column for Client and another for Server, with levels increasing for each successive section (where additional levels are needed), avoiding the need for repetition between Core and Advanced, without making the tables noticeably longer (feature rows with two Xs could be omitted.)
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
