On 21 June 2017 at 17:44, Sam Whited <s...@samwhited.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Daniel Gultsch <dan...@gultsch.de> wrote: >> XEP-0001. We have countless - very essential - stuck in >> very low ranks like experimental and draft. This leads to developers >> implementing (and deploying to large user bases) experimental and >> draft XEPs (which they are not really supposed to) which in turn leads >> the XSF enforce higher standards for experimental XEPs. >> >> The deduplication Sam mentions for example is only supposed to happen >> when something moves to draft. > > That's a good point; you're right, things lingering in experimental is > the only reason duplicates in experimental are bad. This is the more > fundamental issue to some of the things I mentioned. > > Although I'd also note that draft XEPs are okay to implement widely > and are not "low rank". This is a separate problem though; the fact > that its named "draft" makes everyone think that, including some council > members and people involved in the process (I still have the "I > shouldn't implement that in prod, it's just a draft" as a gut reaction > after all this time).
If it really is the name, then let's call it "Stable". Dave. _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
