[jdev] RE: [Standards] Re: compliance levels for 2008

[Sander Devrieze]

On 5/5/07, Kevin Smith <kevin at kismith.co.uk> wrote:
> On 5 May 2007, at 10:13, Sander Devrieze wrote:
> > I vote for the basic PEP XEP and do not specifically require any of
> > the XEPs that require PEP (like User Avatar)
>
> I think PEP is an enabler XEP, you never use PEP on its own, so if we
> don't require anything which is based on PEP I'm not sure it makes
> sense for us to require PEP itself (although I do think it should be
> required through an avatar dependency).

IMO it makes sense because it has been said these compliance levels
will be updated each year. You're right that implementing PEP on it's
own is quite useless. But for this reason client developers will
probably implement one of the XEPs that rely on it. And if we don't
tell them which one they should implement, they will have to chose one
themselves. The advantage of this is, is that we'll see next year
which XEP that relies on PEP is the most popular, and then the
decision for the new compliance levels can be made based on this
information.

-- 
Mvg, Sander Devrieze.