On Tue, Sep 26, 2017, at 06:15, Dave Cridland wrote:
> > Should we rename the status names that we use in XEPs? One of the recurring
> > criticisms about XMPP that I read is "Pretty-standard-feature XYZ has a XEP
> > that is only "experimental"! By doing some window dressing, we will improve
> > the perceived maturity and stability of the protocol.
I agree, "experimental" seems accurately named to me (most people
probably shouldn't implement them, a few early adopters might be
interested, it might change, etc.). If that isn't the case (eg. an XEP
is ready for wider implementation) then it should not be experimental
anymore, it should have been advanced. That is, the problem is that we
advance things too slowly, not the name.
As others have said, the real naming problem is "draft". We can't
actively advance draft as much (since final really is final and can't be
touched ever again), so renaming it to something else ("Stable" sounds
good to me) seems sensible.
—Sam
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
_______________________________________________
