Re: Extending XEP-0313 with trimming support

Hi,

On Tue, 2026-03-31 at 11:59 +0100, Kevin Smith wrote:
> I think Matthew’s change is doing this the right way for Stable -
> Stable allows changes to the XEP as long as they’re
> backwards/forwards compatible, which AFAICS Matthew’s proposal is.

I don't disagree that it is formally correct and allowed to have this
change in a Stable XEP, but I believe the feature in of itself is more
of Experimental quality, meaning we might want to do changes to it that
are not backwards-compatible. If we introduce it into a Stable XEP, we
can't do that. I also fail to see the benefit of adding it to the
existing XEP over creating a new one.

After all, we intentionally have multiple XEPs and not one single
specification with a lot of optional parts. Denoting the status of
features within our specification set is one of the benefits we earn
from doing so. Let's make good use of it.

Marvin
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]