Let me predict something. In a couple of years we'll have tons implementations that migt or might not be compatible.
See, thats actually supporting my point.
An open Protocol needs some sort of defined standartisation-process implementers can rely on.
Standards should discussed in a way everyone can contribute and have a saying. This is what kept Java arount for so long (not that I'm a big fan of Java but their inherit democratic structure keept the ecosystem work). Also this is what keeps the actual Internet working.
If I'd go and do my own Implementation I can't rely on Synapse or Riot not braking things.
From that Perspective, Matrix isn't a standard, it's just software.
> From that Perspective, Matrix isn’t a standard, it’s just software.
Yes, that’s right. I actually agree with you but why not play the devil’s advocate on the internet for fun?
Even though XMPP is standardized by IETF the vast majority of the spec uses XEPs that are not IETF standardized but instead ran by a third-party (https://xmpp.org/about/xmpp-standards-foundation.html). This is similar to the Matrix Foundation (https://matrix.org/foundation/).
Actually a lot of critical XMPP specs in the wild such as OMEMO use proprietary namespaces (eu.siacs...) not the ones found in XEPs so the standardization of XMPP is lacking in several aspects…
Jeah, the base-protocol is an Intrenet-Standard, The Extensions have their own comittee, which is good for a number of reasons.
XEPs won't be changed in a breaking way. Instead, they might be complemented by other XEPs.
This way my XMPP-Server still can talk to a 2000s Implementation. Only with 2000s features but It'll still work.
chaos.social – a Fediverse instance for & by the Chaos community