On 18 Jun 2015 19:21, "Curtis King" <ck...@mumbo.ca> wrote: > > >> On Jun 18, 2015, at 8:45 AM, Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> wrote: >> >> >> On 18 Jun 2015 15:40, "Curtis King" <ck...@mumbo.ca> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> On Jun 18, 2015, at 7:25 AM, Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> 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. >> > >> > >> > Two servers and maybe 5 clients does not make for well supported in my book. >> >> Which two were you thinking of? >> >> Ejabberd has supported it for two years, Openfire for 18 months or so on trunk, prosody for ages. I don't know about the others, but those three account for a very high percentage of deployed domains, once one excludes Google, who don't implement anything anyway. >> >> > > Ok three servers if count a 3rd party plugin for Prosody. >
Yeah, I'd misunderstood prosody. >> > But, how well an extension is supported doesn’t give it special rights to skip the standardization process. >> > >> >> Supported isn't the same as deployed, and I'm not arguing high deployment skips the standards process. However, it does offer evidence that it works, and is desirable, and high deployment does suggest high consensus. >> >> > > You keep making general statements with out any supporting facts. From where I sit, I see zero deployment. I can’t find a single iOS XMPP client which supports 280, Trillian has rolled their own solution, all I can find is a few Android clients, some web frameworks, and after 30 minutes of looking zero desktop clients. Far from an exhaustive survey but from your statements I figured it would be easy to find clients which support 280. > Gajim, for one. And as for iOS XMPP clients, those are thin on the ground anyway. >> Arguing against it on the basis that an unwritten perfect protocol would be better is a much weaker argument. >> >> > > I did no such thing. I will rephrase. > > Is XEP-0280 a complete solution to it’s stated problem? I say no because it does not support the offline case. I don't think it's aiming to support offline use, so I'd disagree with this assertion. > Should a XEP with an incomplete solution be included in the Compliance Suites? If yes, at what level? An incomplete solution to what? 198 is an incomplete solution to the two generals problem, but I wouldn't say it's a waste of time as a result. Extensions solve specific use cases, and "mobile" is really broad, consisting of many different aspects. > Should a XEP be able to be added to the Core level by-passing the Advanced level? > If we'd had a compliance suite since 2012, and mind you, that one was deferred, then I'd say no. I suppose it really depends on what the suits are for. I see them as a way of saying, if you want a basic server, a sensible minimum is this stuff in Core. Those are your cut-off features. If you want a really good all round experience, you want Advanced. But "you" here is typical internet usage, we're not talking tactical, or IoT, or any of the other use cases. I imagine reaching consensus on what the compliance suites mean would be a useful first step. > ck >
