Re: [Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers
On 27 Sep 2017, at 15:08, Sam Whited wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017, at 02:08, Kevin Smith wrote: >> Are they not then going to be upset if there are backwards-incompatible >> changes in a new namespace? We try not to do that in Draft XEPs, but >> that’s the reason they’re Draft rather than Final, to give us that >> option. > > "Stableish”? +1 /K ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017, at 02:08, Kevin Smith wrote: > Are they not then going to be upset if there are backwards-incompatible > changes in a new namespace? We try not to do that in Draft XEPs, but > that’s the reason they’re Draft rather than Final, to give us that > option. "Stableish"? —Sam ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers
On 26 Sep 2017, at 20:35, Sam Whited wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017, at 14:19, Ivan Vučica wrote: >> And now, to bikeshed a bit on the proposed naming: To a casual reader, >> stable has similar implications as final. Especially if said reader is >> used to Debian's use of the word. > > That seems like exactly what we want. Are they not then going to be upset if there are backwards-incompatible changes in a new namespace? We try not to do that in Draft XEPs, but that’s the reason they’re Draft rather than Final, to give us that option. /K ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers
On 26 September 2017 at 20:19, Ivan Vučica wrote: > And now, to bikeshed a bit on the proposed naming: To a casual reader, > stable has similar implications as final. Especially if said reader is used > to Debian's use of the word. I think to developers, the two *do* have similar implications. Dave. ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017, at 14:19, Ivan Vučica wrote: > And now, to bikeshed a bit on the proposed naming: To a casual reader, > stable has similar implications as final. Especially if said reader is > used to Debian's use of the word. That seems like exactly what we want. —Sam ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 6:57 PM Sam Whited wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017, at 12:37, Ivan Vučica wrote: > > > > On 26 September 2017 at 14:47:27, Sam Whited (s...@samwhited.com) wrote: > > > > As others have said, the real naming problem is "draft". We can't > > actively advance draft as much (since final really is final and can't be > > touched ever again) > > Is that a bad thing? > > To be clear, the fact that the name "draft" confuses people into > thinking it's something that's not yet ready is a bad thing, not the > fact that draft takes a long time to advance (which is a good thing). > > > Conversely, is it a good thing that certain XEPs have changed a lot since > > the first draft? > > Your use of the phrase "the first draft" illustrates my point. I am not > sure what you meant by that, if you meant "the first revision in the > Draft status" then XEPs should not have changed a lot. If you mean "the > first published revision of an XEP in Experimental", then it's not a bad > thing that they've changed a lot, that's just the development process. > Don't get me wrong, I would be in favor of replacing draft with something else. I am just not sure "we don't want to mark XEPs final as we can't change them later" is a valid reason. Maybe there should be more effort to actually make XEPs final and backwards compatible, especially since many clients and servers claim compatibility with XEPs, not with revisions of XEPs. If I search today for software that implements XEP-0313, I often cannot know if it'll actually be compatible with my server without digging into the code and seeing that, ah, no, it's not compatible -- it has no support for :2 namespace. For searchability, I would have been happier if incompatible namespace changes were made in a new XEP. And now, to bikeshed a bit on the proposed naming: To a casual reader, stable has similar implications as final. Especially if said reader is used to Debian's use of the word. Perhaps something like "ready" or, to borrow Debian conventions, "testing", would be better? ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017, at 12:37, Ivan Vučica wrote: > > On 26 September 2017 at 14:47:27, Sam Whited (s...@samwhited.com) wrote: > > As others have said, the real naming problem is "draft". We can't > actively advance draft as much (since final really is final and can't be > touched ever again) > Is that a bad thing? To be clear, the fact that the name "draft" confuses people into thinking it's something that's not yet ready is a bad thing, not the fact that draft takes a long time to advance (which is a good thing). > Conversely, is it a good thing that certain XEPs have changed a lot since > the first draft? Your use of the phrase "the first draft" illustrates my point. I am not sure what you meant by that, if you meant "the first revision in the Draft status" then XEPs should not have changed a lot. If you mean "the first published revision of an XEP in Experimental", then it's not a bad thing that they've changed a lot, that's just the development process. —Sam ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers
On 26 September 2017 at 14:47:27, Sam Whited (s...@samwhited.com) wrote: As others have said, the real naming problem is "draft". We can't actively advance draft as much (since final really is final and can't be touched ever again) Is that a bad thing? Conversely, is it a good thing that certain XEPs have changed a lot since the first draft? signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using AMPGpg ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers
Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:22:17 +0200 Goffi wrote: > I've seen that there was a need > to get disco items in XEP-0355. I've tried to update my Prosody > implementation and Pubsub component to test it, and now that I see > it's working, I want to update the XEP. I actually found the disco part the most irritable. There is a state where a component is connected, a server sent a disco request and no disco response is received yet. In this state it's hard to say anything about correctness of work of a component: this can be use case dependent. ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers
On Dienstag, 26. September 2017 09:47:10 CEST Sam Whited wrote: > As others have said, the real naming problem is "draft". We can't > actively advance draft as much (since final really is final and can't be > touched ever again), so renaming it to something else ("Stable" sounds > good to me) seems sensible. +1. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017, at 06:15, Dave Cridland wrote: > > Should we rename the status names that we use in XEPs? One of the recurring > > criticisms about XMPP that I read is "Pretty-standard-feature XYZ has a XEP > > that is only "experimental"! By doing some window dressing, we will improve > > the perceived maturity and stability of the protocol. I agree, "experimental" seems accurately named to me (most people probably shouldn't implement them, a few early adopters might be interested, it might change, etc.). If that isn't the case (eg. an XEP is ready for wider implementation) then it should not be experimental anymore, it should have been advanced. That is, the problem is that we advance things too slowly, not the name. As others have said, the real naming problem is "draft". We can't actively advance draft as much (since final really is final and can't be touched ever again), so renaming it to something else ("Stable" sounds good to me) seems sensible. —Sam ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers
On 26.09.2017 15:38, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 9/26/17 5:15 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: >> On 26 September 2017 at 10:03, Guus der Kinderen >> wrote: >>> Hello all, >>> >>> Should we rename the status names that we use in XEPs? One of the recurring >>> criticisms about XMPP that I read is "Pretty-standard-feature XYZ has a XEP >>> that is only "experimental"! By doing some window dressing, we will improve >>> the perceived maturity and stability of the protocol. >> >> Left shifts are bad. >> >> I'd rather we chose to aggressively advance XEPs, and where we find >> that impossible, try to fix the problems preventing it. In other >> words, I would rather improve the actual maturity and stability of the >> protocol, rather than merely play with the perception of it. >> >> We need a playground, and we need that playground to be in the open - >> Experimental XEPs should be providing this playground. >> >> That said, "Draft" is an IETF-ism that could easily enough be replaced >> by "Stable" - it's been dropped at the IETF (incorrectly, I feel, but >> still) so the reference is largely gone. >> >> Dave. > > I'd be fine with "Stable". +1 for s/Draft/Stable/ - Florian signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers
On 9/26/17 5:15 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > On 26 September 2017 at 10:03, Guus der Kinderen > wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> Should we rename the status names that we use in XEPs? One of the recurring >> criticisms about XMPP that I read is "Pretty-standard-feature XYZ has a XEP >> that is only "experimental"! By doing some window dressing, we will improve >> the perceived maturity and stability of the protocol. > > Left shifts are bad. > > I'd rather we chose to aggressively advance XEPs, and where we find > that impossible, try to fix the problems preventing it. In other > words, I would rather improve the actual maturity and stability of the > protocol, rather than merely play with the perception of it. > > We need a playground, and we need that playground to be in the open - > Experimental XEPs should be providing this playground. > > That said, "Draft" is an IETF-ism that could easily enough be replaced > by "Stable" - it's been dropped at the IETF (incorrectly, I feel, but > still) so the reference is largely gone. > > Dave. I'd be fine with "Stable". Peter signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers
Le mardi 26 septembre 2017, 13:15:57 CEST Dave Cridland a écrit : > On 26 September 2017 at 10:03, Guus der Kinderen > > wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > Should we rename the status names that we use in XEPs? One of the > > recurring > > criticisms about XMPP that I read is "Pretty-standard-feature XYZ has a > > XEP > > that is only "experimental"! By doing some window dressing, we will > > improve > > the perceived maturity and stability of the protocol. > > Left shifts are bad. > > I'd rather we chose to aggressively advance XEPs, and where we find > that impossible, try to fix the problems preventing it. In other > words, I would rather improve the actual maturity and stability of the > protocol, rather than merely play with the perception of it. > > We need a playground, and we need that playground to be in the open - > Experimental XEPs should be providing this playground. > > That said, "Draft" is an IETF-ism that could easily enough be replaced > by "Stable" - it's been dropped at the IETF (incorrectly, I feel, but > still) so the reference is largely gone. > > Dave. After a short discussion on the xsf@ MUC room, I'm just adding here my experience: I'm author of XEP-0355 and XEP-0356, and both have been written and modified lastly more that one year ago. These XEPs have at least 2 implementations (one in Prosody that I've made, and one in Ejabberd), and it's used by at least one component (SàT Pubsub that I'm developping) which can potentially be of interest for the whole XMPP community (being a generic PEP/Pubsub component). I've had nothing to add to these XEP during the last year, but I wanted to wait for maturity of implementations, and maybe feedback before requesting a move to draft. Meawhile these 2 XEPs have been deferred. Recently, by testing compatibility with Movim, I've seen that there was a need to get disco items in XEP-0355. I've tried to update my Prosody implementation and Pubsub component to test it, and now that I see it's working, I want to update the XEP. My point here is that it's not because a XEP is not touched at all that it is abandonned, it may just mean that the author is waiting for implementation/ maturity before requesting an update. "Deferred" status is OK IMHO (I roughly consider it as equivalent to experimental), but it may refrain people to do an implementation, as they may thing the author is not taking care of the XEPs. It was just to add my experience to the discussion, I'm not in favor of any workflow change, and not opposed to it either. But I think the time is more to consolidate implementations and fix standard issues than to change workflow (which is working more or less at the moment). Goffi ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers
On 26 September 2017 at 10:03, Guus der Kinderen wrote: > Hello all, > > Should we rename the status names that we use in XEPs? One of the recurring > criticisms about XMPP that I read is "Pretty-standard-feature XYZ has a XEP > that is only "experimental"! By doing some window dressing, we will improve > the perceived maturity and stability of the protocol. Left shifts are bad. I'd rather we chose to aggressively advance XEPs, and where we find that impossible, try to fix the problems preventing it. In other words, I would rather improve the actual maturity and stability of the protocol, rather than merely play with the perception of it. We need a playground, and we need that playground to be in the open - Experimental XEPs should be providing this playground. That said, "Draft" is an IETF-ism that could easily enough be replaced by "Stable" - it's been dropped at the IETF (incorrectly, I feel, but still) so the reference is largely gone. Dave. ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers
* Guus der Kinderen [2017-09-26 11:06]: > By doing some window dressing, we will improve the perceived maturity > and stability of the protocol. Absolutely +1. MUC is 15 years old, and it's still in "Draft". We really need better names (though we probably need to discuss those at length, first). To quote a quite pragmatic (but maybe not quite serious) proposal from the xsf@ MUC: > "Work in progress", "Almost done", "Done" Kind regards Georg -- || http://op-co.de ++ GCS d--(++) s: a C+++ UL+++ !P L+++ !E W+++ N ++ || gpg: 0x962FD2DE || o? K- w---() O M V? PS+ PE-- Y++ PGP+ t+ 5 R+ || || Ge0rG: euIRCnet || X(+++) tv+ b+(++) DI+++ D- G e h- r++ y? || ++ IRCnet OFTC OPN ||_|| signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
[Standards] Rename XEP status identifiers
Hello all, Should we rename the status names that we use in XEPs? One of the recurring criticisms about XMPP that I read is "Pretty-standard-feature XYZ has a XEP that is only "experimental"! By doing some window dressing, we will improve the perceived maturity and stability of the protocol. Regards, Guus ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___