3 ms·
That's fair; I don't mean to suggest that all standards bodies are perfect all the time, or that they've never made mistakes :) just that it's better than makin
by SamWhited 5y ago
That's fair; I don't mean to suggest that all standards bodies are perfect all the time, or that they've never made mistakes :) just that it's better than making up a foundation spinoff from a company that doesn't have any experience and will re-invent the wheel yet again instead of submitting the standard to one of the existing standards bodies.
- joepie91_ 5y agoMatrix as a protocol is still in active development. Unlike "low-level" protocols such as HTTP, the Matrix protocol is much closer to end-user experience and so it must be able to move relatively quickly to remain competitive with proprietary systems. This generally does not fit into the process of standards bodies like the IETF very well. There's a reason why eg. the WHATWG exists, basically.
- SamWhited 5y agoSure, it doesn't have to be the IETF, that was just an example. But even they tend to do this well (by eg. spinning off a smaller more agile standards body to keep up with building extensions more rapidly). Also, rapid development has its own set of problems as we've seen with XMPP (where no two clients support the same set of features because new ones are being developed to keep up with various proprietary things all the time). Anyways, point is, don't reinvent the wheel, I'm sure one of the standard bodies could have been a good fit if we needed this at all, but Matrix definitely isn't a good fit for this Freenode replacement and this is one of the reasons why (the other is that Freenode works just fine and the point is that this is a drop in replacement).