On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 16:46, Matthew Wild <mwi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 15:24, Tedd Sterr <teddst...@outlook.com> wrote: > >> 4. The original version (XEP-0242/0243) had two simple categories, Core >> and Advanced, and that was all; later versions just continued with that. >> The IM Suite, especially, is becoming quite top-heavy, so adding a middle >> level would be good - but what to call it? Instead of names, how about >> simply Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 - right now that would map Core to >> Level 1 and Advanced to Level 3, then a subset of Level 3 could make up >> Level 2. Note that not all Suites require 3 levels (or even 2 in the case >> of Web). [This also fits nicely with a compliance badge design idea I have.] >> > > I agree with everything you said, but I'm especially in favour of fixing > this one. Part of the goal of these things is to help summarize XMPP > compliance of a piece of software to people who aren't intimate with XMPP. > There is no planet on which describing a piece of software as "Core Core" > makes sense. > > I'd be in favour of either switching to "Basic"/"Advanced" (I think > "Basic" was frowned upon originally, which is why it wasn't used), or to > numbered levels as you propose. > We originally went for "Core" and "Advanced" with the intent that while "Advanced" clearly sounds pretty damn cool, people would be happy to put a marketing sticker type thing on their product with "Core" on it. This was explicitly up against "Basic", which we didn't think was the kind of thing people would want to brag about. If we were to change things, I think I'd avoid "Basic" still, for the same reasons. Dave.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
