Re: Extending XEP-0313 with trimming support
Kevin Smith via Standards <[email protected]> Tue, 31 Mar 2026 12:28:02 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.jabber.standards-jig |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 31 Mar 2026, at 12:20, Matthew Wild <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 at 12:09, Marvin W. via Standards > <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. > > I'm fine with this, if it's the consensus of the community/Council. > > I agree we are far from "everything in one specification", but I think > there is a balance to strike between having every little feature in > individual XEPs, and having everything related to, say, archive > management, in one place. MUC is suffering from the effects of the > "small bolted on XEPs" approach right now, and it makes it a pain for > implementers to figure out what's what. I think this is also all fair. A think we used to do, rarely, once upon a time, was having new specs as new documents, and as they got (lowercase) stable rolled them into existing documents. I suppose that would be an option here that would both address Marvin’s “we might need to change this after publishing” and Matthew’s “Let’s not duplicate the MUC fragmentation”. /K _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]