[Standards] 2009 compliance suites?

[Peter Saint-Andre]

We haven't really done much with the 2008 compliance suites:

XEP-0211: XMPP Basic Client 2008
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0211.html

XEP-0212: XMPP Basic Server 2008
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0212.html

XEP-0213: XMPP Intermediate IM Client 2008
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0213.html

XEP-0216: XMPP Intermediate IM Server 2008
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0216.html

However, we *might* decide to do interesting things with such compliance
suites in the future, perhaps as soon as 2009.

Would it be helpful for us to define 2009 suites? If so, we need to get
that done soon, because we promised that we'd define the suites for 2009
by June 30 2008 (etc.).

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

[Kevin Smith]

On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 10:05 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter (AT) stpeter (DOT) im> wrote:
> Would it be helpful for us to define 2009 suites? If so, we need to get
> that done soon, because we promised that we'd define the suites for 2009
> by June 30 2008 (etc.).

We should .

/K

[Tomasz Sterna]

Dnia 2008-05-22, czw o godzinie 15:05 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre pisze:
> We haven't really done much with the 2008 compliance suites:
> However, we *might* decide to do interesting things with such
> compliance
> suites in the future, perhaps as soon as 2009.

How would 2009 suites be different to 2008 suites that we do with them
more than with 2008 suites?


--
/\_./o__ Tomasz Sterna
(/^/(_^^' http://www.xiaoka.com/
.._.(_.)_ im:smoku (AT) xiaoka (DOT) com

[Kevin Smith]

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Tomasz Sterna <tomek (AT) xiaoka (DOT) com> wrote:
> How would 2009 suites be different to 2008 suites that we do with them
> more than with 2008 suites?

People have, slowly, started using the 2008 suites to mark up the
features of their projects, and as guidance, 2009 would just be more
of the same in terms of guidance for features.

/K

[Peter Saint-Andre]

On 05/26/2008 3:59 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Tomasz Sterna <tomek (AT) xiaoka (DOT) com> wrote:
>> How would 2009 suites be different to 2008 suites that we do with them
>> more than with 2008 suites?
>
> People have, slowly, started using the 2008 suites to mark up the
> features of their projects, and as guidance, 2009 would just be more
> of the same in terms of guidance for features.

I think the 2009 suites might remove some of the RECOMMENDED features or
change them to REQUIRED (IMHO it makes no sense to have a RECOMMENDED
feature -- either something is needed for compliance or it's not).

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

[Kevin Smith]

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter (AT) stpeter (DOT) im> wrote:
> I think the 2009 suites might remove some of the RECOMMENDED features or
> change them to REQUIRED (IMHO it makes no sense to have a RECOMMENDED
> feature -- either something is needed for compliance or it's not).

I'm pretty happy with the way we previously used RECOMMENDED, I think
it's a good heads-up that it'll be required the following year.

/K

[Peter Saint-Andre]

On 05/27/2008 10:37 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter (AT) stpeter (DOT) im> wrote:
>> I think the 2009 suites might remove some of the RECOMMENDED features or
>> change them to REQUIRED (IMHO it makes no sense to have a RECOMMENDED
>> feature -- either something is needed for compliance or it's not).
>
> I'm pretty happy with the way we previously used RECOMMENDED, I think
> it's a good heads-up that it'll be required the following year.

Except that sometimes it may not be required, in which case the
RECOMMENDED is a false alarm. An example might be XEP-0155 in 2008,
which we expected to lead into ESessions as REQUIRED for 2009 in some
suite (which now seems unlikely).

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

[Kevin Smith]

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter (AT) stpeter (DOT) im> wrote:
>> I'm pretty happy with the way we previously used RECOMMENDED, I think
>> it's a good heads-up that it'll be required the following year.
> Except that sometimes it may not be required, in which case the
> RECOMMENDED is a false alarm. An example might be XEP-0155 in 2008,
> which we expected to lead into ESessions as REQUIRED for 2009 in some
> suite (which now seems unlikely).

Sure, I'm happy with that as a reason not to do it again :)

/K

[Peter Saint-Andre]

On 05/27/2008 11:02 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter (AT) stpeter (DOT) im> wrote:
>>> I'm pretty happy with the way we previously used RECOMMENDED, I think
>>> it's a good heads-up that it'll be required the following year.
>> Except that sometimes it may not be required, in which case the
>> RECOMMENDED is a false alarm. An example might be XEP-0155 in 2008,
>> which we expected to lead into ESessions as REQUIRED for 2009 in some
>> suite (which now seems unlikely).
>
> Sure, I'm happy with that as a reason not to do it again :)

Or: we could have a section in each suite about "possible future
additions" so that developers have a heads-up, but not make them
RECOMMENDED.

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

[Stephan Maka]

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> XEP-0213: XMPP Intermediate IM Client 2008
> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0213.html

How about recommending Jingle File Transfer to accelerate the transition
away from XEP-0096? I know it is still experimental...


Stephan

[Peter Saint-Andre]

On 05/30/2008 9:16 AM, Stephan Maka wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> XEP-0213: XMPP Intermediate IM Client 2008
>> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0213.html
>
> How about recommending Jingle File Transfer to accelerate the transition
> away from XEP-0096? I know it is still experimental...

I like the thought, but we can't require developers to implement
experimental specs. Maybe for 2010. ;-)

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

[sander]

On 05/30/2008 9:16 AM, Stephan Maka wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> XEP-0213: XMPP Intermediate IM Client 2008
>> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0213.html
>
> How about recommending Jingle File Transfer to accelerate the transition
> away from XEP-0096? I know it is still experimental...

I like the thought, but we can't require developers to implement
experimental specs. Maybe for 2010. ;-)

...or Peter can work harder to get this spec out of the experimental state very soon! :D

[Kevin Smith]

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 7:33 PM, JabberForum
<list-standards (AT) jabberforum (DOT) org> wrote:
>> I like the thought, but we can't require developers to implement
>> experimental specs. Maybe for 2010. ;-)
> ...or Peter can work harder to get this spec out of the experimental
> state very soon! :D

Sure, we know Peter's one of the least contributing members of the
community after all...

Pity's sake Sander.

/K

[Peter Saint-Andre]

On 05/30/2008 12:39 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 7:33 PM, JabberForum
> <list-standards (AT) jabberforum (DOT) org> wrote:
>>> I like the thought, but we can't require developers to implement
>>> experimental specs. Maybe for 2010. ;-)
>> ...or Peter can work harder to get this spec out of the experimental
>> state very soon! :D
>
> Sure, we know Peter's one of the least contributing members of the
> community after all...

Well it had dependencies. We need to finish the core Jingle specs first,
and I'm actively gathering implementation feedback on those...

P

--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/