Re: Consensus Call on Adoption of POSH

On 1/30/14 1:48 PM, "Alexander Holler" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Am 30.01.2014 13:25, schrieb Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr):
>> (As chair)
>>
>> JSON comments are *out of scope* for the XMPP working group.  Please
>>take
>> your suggestions to the JSON working group if you think you have an
>> approach that can be adopted.
>
>Hmm, so you are going to define or adopt a standard which lacks the
>possibility to use comments (either to provide human readable
>descriptions or as a way to quickly deactivate something)?

I carefully didn't say that.  Choosing something other than JSON is
certainly in scope.

>I would't call this out of scope.

If there are others that feel this way, let's have the discussion here to
try to change my mind, I suppose.  Failing that, there's an appeal
process.  I will say that when there's a currently chartered and active
working group in a particular space (json), it would be really odd to do
work on that protocol in a different working group (xmpp).

>If you adopt POSH without providing
>(defining) a way how to add comments to the JSON definitions, this will
>be a serious flaw (in my humble opinion).

That part of the discussion is also in scope.  Changing *JSON itself* is
the only thing I'm declaring out of scope for this wg.

>I'm not calling that the XMPP working group fixes that serious problem
>of JSON, I'm calling that they will add a sentence like "comments may
>start with a #) to the POSH standard or it's adoption if the working
>group is going to adopt it. You might call it a "variant" of JSON.

Setting up a competitor to JSON is not in this group's charter.  We don't
have to use JSON, but if we do, we'll have a normative reference to the
JSON RFC.

>Anyway, I've just wanted to provide a maybe useful comment for POSH and
>don't want to discuss JSON.

Let's continue that discussion then.  Is there anyone else that thinks
that comments are important in POSH?  Are  those comments more important
than using JSON?  Can we come up with a format that includes comments in a
JSON-compatible manner?

-- 
Joe Hildebrand