On 2012-07-11 4:58 AM, "Gunnar Hellström" <gunnar.hellst...@omnitor.se> wrote: > > Mark, > In all this, I get the impression that you design for the fragmented case, when each XMPP service provider selects its own behavior for its clients and only expects their clients to have communication with other clients of the same service provider. > > I am still hoping that the world shall return to openness and interoperability, benefiting the users, and in the end thereby also the service providers. > > Anyway, I think you have what you want if you just delete the last paragraph of section 5, and let the fallback ( discovery-less) alternative be described as now in 6.2 Activation. > > There are enough SHOULDs in the spec to allow isolated implementors do it their own way.
Spoken like a true Ph.D and a need for scientifically logical standardization. though from a perspective: it is already an open and interoperable standard with key, carefully-chosen compromises. By far!! HTML won because of its flexible design. Any kid with Notepad could randomly mash <B> and <I> and amaze them with text that shows up equally in Tokyo and Paris. HTML is WAAAAAAAAY less organized than XEP-0301. Methinks you want the standard to be excessively organized. I am aiming for attractiveness among multiple potential standards users, balancing compromises as much as possible. But, my scientific side agrees with you, too. Mark Rejhon
