On 18 Jun 2015 15:01, "Kurt Zeilenga" <kurt.zeile...@isode.com> wrote: > > What’s the bar for “core”? I would think it at least mature Draft standard if not Full standard. > > I don’t think it’s appropriate to add Carbons to core when it seems that there’s not consensus that it’s the best solution for any problem the majority of XMPP IM/MUC deployments are facing. >
There's consensus, I would argue, given that it's extremely well supported in servers, desktop and mobile clients. In fact, finding servers that didn't support it a year ago is hard. > — Kurt > > > On Jun 17, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <pe...@andyet.net> wrote: > > > > On 6/17/15 3:33 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 17 June 2015 at 20:52, Curtis King <ck...@mumbo.ca > >> <mailto:ck...@mumbo.ca>> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > On Jun 17, 2015, at 8:46 AM, Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net <mailto:d...@cridland.net>> wrote: > >> > > >> > Folks, > >> > > >> > Many moons past, before the dawn of a couple of years ago, we had things like XEP-0302, which declared that - excitingly - advanced servers might want to implement PEP. > >> > > >> > I think that these days, any server should be doing PEP. I suspect we're nearing the point where we need to consider Carbons as a "Core", rather than "Advanced”. > >> > >> When was Carbons even listed as Advanced? > >> > >> > >> Yeah... I read that back and wondered what the hell I meant, sorry, that > >> was hopelessly unclear of me. > >> > >> I meant to say that Carbons wasn't even on there before, whereas it's > >> now pretty much essential. > > > > Agreed with respect to the technology. With respect to the process, the Carbons XEP is still Experimental. I think that it's not right to make a XEP part of a compliance suite if it's still Experimental. But that can be solved by moving the XEP forward on the standards track. > > > > Peter > > > > -- > > Peter Saint-Andre > > https://andyet.com/ >
