On Mon, 03 Jun 2024 16:06:37 +0200 Goffi <[email protected]> wrote: > Le lundi 3 juin 2024, 14:58:23 UTC+2 Marvin W a écrit : > > > It's not as soon as your change causes incompatibility issues with > > other clients if they don't follow and also "move fast" and > > implement experimental functionality - and if everyone needs to > > follow yours to be compatible, it's effectively stable, because > > changes can't be done without breaking compatibility again. So we > > should just move forward and call it stable, and be happy to fork > > into a new XEP number that supersedes the old one if needed. > > Changes don't cause incompatibilities, we have namespaces to handle > that. You can perfectly adapt to the change according to namespace. > > The issue is that people are afraid that other won't implement new > things. > > > > > > The "experimental" state is clear: it may change and break. > > > > That seems to not be clear to anyone, to be honest, especially not > > end- users and also not in how we market our products. > > > > OMEMO is in Experimental and yet a lot of clients feature it as > > regular functionality and breaking it would have terrible > > consequences and render communication between some clients > > impossible. Realistically, siacs OMEMO (XEP-0384-v0.3) is in fact a > > stable specification, even if we wanted to and eventually did > > breaking changes to it afterwards. It's a mess. The cleaner way > > would have been to advance v0.3 to stable and do a new XEP for a > > second version OMEMO that is what the current XEP. > > My client implements both old and new OMEMO and adapts to the right > version thanks to namespaces. > > Doing a new XEP would not have changed anything. People have > implemented OMEMO because there was a need (and pressure from users > and other IM solutions). Waiting for a new version years later would > have only put XMPP in oblivion. > > Now, projects have to handle priorities, and the current version is > working well enough that they handle the implementation when it makes > sense to them. > > Also the "proper" new version is more difficult to implement, so it > makes sense that it's done progressively. >
Agreed. We don't need yet more XEP numbers to shift through. We already have way too many of them. Instead we should start using the namespaces more. And also we shouldnt be afraid to update Stable XEPs if there are substaincial changes. I mean we have feature discovery and namespaces for that reason :) MSavoritias _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
