On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 17:41, Ненахов Андрей <andrew.nenak...@redsolution.ru> wrote:
> чт, 17 янв. 2019 г. в 15:38, Ralph Meijer <ral...@ik.nu>: > > This is explicitly not how our standards process has been set up. The > > idea here is that having a published document as a starting point makes > > it more likely that people are not entrenched in particular early design > > choices, and discussion on those happen within the greater community. > > Yes, so far this process has led XMPP to a great success, with jabber > being used as a primary communication protocol by a significant > portion of internet users. > XMPP has always struggled with being a primary communications method for a significant portion of internet users. On the other hand, it is widely used within a broad selection of niche areas (frustratingly, to me, many of these are not federated). However, our greatest successes haven't correlated with standards which were brought to the XSF having already been implemented - they have occurred where multiple implementors collaborate, openly, from an early stage. Examples of the former include Jingle, where we still struggle with any kind of interoperability. Example of the latter include MUC. I think early implementation is very important - which is why I argued we should remove barriers to it such as the old "tmp" namespace strategy, for example, and I personally weight implementation very highly in advancement, even when it's not strictly required. But the risk of imposing a rule that says people must implement first, and standardise later, is that those same people will expect to be able to have their specifications rubber-stamped through the process. Dave.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
