On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 10:45 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 9/15/09 5:03 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > > ------- Original message ------- > >> From: Christophe Romain <[email protected]> > >> To: [email protected] > >> Sent: 15/9/'09, 11:41 > >> > >> XEP-0060 says collection nodes are defined in XEP-0248 > >> see http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0060.html#glossary > >> but XEP-0248 status is Deferred > >> will the collection node definition get back to XEP-0060 ? > > > > > > No, it's just that the spec hasn't been touched in a while. See XEP-0001 > > for details. > > Right. I am going to work on XEP-0060 and then turn to XEP-0248 etc. > > Keep those cards and letters coming!
For completeness, this specification (XEP-0248) needs a good look and that's why the authors haven't moved to push (haha) it further through the process. Concerns include: * Usefulness of notification depth choices * Implementability * Access control * Unclarity about what subscription caused a notification (when subscribing to multiple collections that aggregate an overlapping set of nodes and/or when SubIDs are involved). * The lack of support for off-service node aggregation (but see XEP-0253 PubSub Chaining) * Whether they are practically useful to have. For the latter point I bring the following hypotheses to the table: Every time somebody wants to start using pubsub collections (as it is currently defined), they really want to implement nodes-as-code. For me, it appears that static configuration of collections is painful, and services that want to provide nodes that aggregate other nodes have implicit rules for determining where stuff should go. So in spirit that would be kinda the same as collections, but without the additional protocol and DAG theory. ralphm
