<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Specification Coverage on SoloSoft</title><link>https://www.solosoft.dev/tags/specification-coverage/</link><description>Recent content in Specification Coverage on SoloSoft</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://www.solosoft.dev/tags/specification-coverage/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>IRCv3 in 2026: 48 Specs, Only 3 Required, 13 Still Drafts — and a Website That Out-Commits the Spec Repo 1,064 to 604</title><link>https://www.solosoft.dev/post/ircv3-support-matrix-audit/</link><pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://www.solosoft.dev/post/ircv3-support-matrix-audit/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;On 2026-10-11, someone posted &lt;code&gt;ircv3.net&lt;/code&gt; — the bare homepage, no news, no release note — to Hacker News. It reached 345 points and 292 comments. The exact same URL was posted on 2016-10-09 and reached 595 points and 217 comments. Ten years apart, the same page, the same audience, roughly the same volume of argument.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That is either a story about a protocol with unusual staying power, or a story about a standards process that has been visibly not-finishing the same work for a decade. The interesting thing is that IRCv3 publishes enough machine-readable data about itself to check which one it is. So I checked.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>