Audit experimental XEPs for proposed registry entries

[SamWhited]

#192 updated the registry policy to have a Proposed state. This means that the editors should probably:

• figure out where the new registry pages will live and how they're generated and how to add things in a proposed state
• audit all experimental XEPs for proposed registry entries (or update the tooling to support proposed entries and run it against the experimental XEPs)
• audit templates or other mentions of the registry to make sure they include the new policy where appropriate

[Kev]

On 13 Jul 2016, at 17:26, Sam Whited [email protected] wrote:

#192 updated the registry policy to have a Proposed state. This means that the editors should probably:

• figure out where the new registry pages will live and how they're generated and how to add things in a proposed state

OK, we’ve got the registrar repository now, and I think @tfar has offered to help with getting that rendered on the server - I’ll discuss with him.

• audit all experimental XEPs for registry entries

I think it would be reasonable to put the proposed state in place from now on, and only apply to old XEPs where someone is sufficiently motivated to create a PR against the registry.

• audit templates or other mentions of the registry to make sure they include the new policy where appropriate

I’ll look at this in the morning (assuming I have a spare moment).

/K

[Flowdalic]

I'd like to tackle this one, as it was me who proposed the proposed registry entry state. So I've some personal interest in getting this done.

• audit all experimental XEPs for registry entries

Happy to do that. Incl all the existing XEPs as I don't see the point in having it only for the new ones.

I'd start with introducing <status/>. As for example for the 'jingle' querytype which was introduced in 3dd1e4b590ecd2353ebb64b66c19412e39370010 and the reason for #192 :

<querytype>
  <name>jingle</name>
  <proto>urn:xmpp:jinglepub:1</proto>
  <desc>enables retrieving Jingle sessions (file transfer, etc.)</desc>
  <doc>XEP-0358</doc>
  <status>proposed</status> <!-- New 'status' element -->
  <keys/>
    <key>
      <name>id</name>
      <desc>The 'jinglepub' identifier</desc>
    </key>
  <keys/>
</querytype>

I could imagine that there are corner cases in the registry where this scheme does not apply, e.g. when there are keys introduced by different XEPs which are possible in different states. But let's sure those out when we encounter them.

[SamWhited]

@Flowdalic Ping; are you still interested in handling this?