Re: [xmpp] what goes where?

Pedro Melo <melo@simplicidade.org> Fri, 26 June 2009 11:40 UTC

From: Pedro Melo <melo@simplicidade.org>
To: xmpp@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <4A43AFF1.6030609@stpeter.im>
References: <4A43AFF1.6030609@stpeter.im>
Message-Id: <822A210C-C92E-4173-930E-1FA6D84A3611@simplicidade.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v928.1)
Jabber-Id: melo@simplicidade.org
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:51:40 +0100
Subject: Re: [xmpp] what goes where?
Precedence: list

Hi,

On Jun 25, 2009, at 6:12 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> The division between "core" and "im/pres" (RFC 3920 and RFC 3921)
> reflected a preference expressed by Pete Resnick, co-chair of the
> original XMPP WG (2002-2004). I have a few questions:
>
> 1. Do people find this division useful?

Yes.

> 2. Would it be better or worse to combine this material into one large
> specification?

No.

> 3. Would some other division be even more useful? For example, I have
> long toyed with the following:

As parts of the spec become obsolete or no longer recommended, it  
might make sense to pull those outside the RFC and into XEP's, but  
right now, I don't see any parts of the current spec that would qualify.

And as Alexey pointed out, keeping the same structure as rfc392{0,1}  
is very usefull for diff'ing.

Best regards,
-- 
Pedro Melo
Blog: http://www.simplicidade.org/notes/
XMPP ID: melo@simplicidade.org
Use XMPP!

[xmpp] what goes where? Peter Saint-Andre
Re: [xmpp] what goes where? Jiří Zárevúcky
Re: [xmpp] what goes where? Curtis King
Re: [xmpp] what goes where? Alexey Melnikov
Re: [xmpp] what goes where? Peter Saint-Andre
Re: [xmpp] what goes where? Peter Saint-Andre
Re: [xmpp] what goes where? Dave Cridland
Re: [xmpp] what goes where? Remko Tronçon
Re: [xmpp] what goes where? Kevin Smith
Re: [xmpp] what goes where? Pedro Melo