Hi, I always like up to date documents and specifications. So I vote yes :-)
In my opinion, there are (too) many "last-updated-2004" documents. (or at least mid-2000s) Or generally documents, which are really long in Draft state. (XEP-0001 says it can become Final after 6 months in Draft and 2 implementations, which probably apply to most XEPs) Or documents which feel strange, when reading them, e.g. XEP-0270 vs XEP-0302, which imply that XMPP isn't moving much since 2010. Christian Am 28.02.2014 um 01:24 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre: > Old, nay ancient, thread alert! > > On 9/17/12, 2:31 PM, Philipp Hancke wrote: >> While searching for the design guideline that says "don't put big things >> inside a presence stanza, use PEP" I found XEP-0134 and it almost had >> what I was looking for: >> >>> Finally, as explained in XMPP Core, the <presence/> stanza exists to >>> broadcast network and communications availability only; for more >>> advanced information publishing, use Publish-Subscribe [7]. >> >> This is somewhat outdated, you'd use PEP for that. There are several >> other points where this is outdated. How comes nobody ever noticed that >> (Peter has an excuse -- he was expecting feedback)? >> >> My effort may be in vain since google doesn't seem to consider 0134 to >> be important but I'll raise (some of) the issues anyway. Specifically: >> 2.1: XMPP is Sacred >> well, it's a hard process, but making changes is possible. >> The reference to XEP-0060 ought to be replaced by one to 0163 >> obviously. >> >> 2.2: how long has groupchat been deprecated? 8 years at least? Doesn't >> strike me as a good example these days. >> >> 2.3: jingle/ice might be a better example. >> >> 2.4.: oh, this section still calls it "Jabber" :-) >> >> 2.5: again, jingle would be a better example. >> >> Generally, i think this document is really 2004! Alot has changed since >> then. XEP-0115 (in it's current revision) certainly impacts the design >> of new extensions, as does PEP. Are things like SI (XEP-0095) still >> relevant? > > Yes, that document is probably well out of date now. Do we feel it would be > worth the effort to bring it into the modern world? > > Peter >
