-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 9/16/09 12:33 AM, Ralph Meijer wrote: > 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.
Good summary. That's quite a list. > 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. Has anyone ever written up the node-as-code concept? I think that would be quite helpful. > 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. Exactly. Simpler is better, if we can make it work. We must remember that not everything needs to be defined in protocol... Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkqw99gACgkQNL8k5A2w/vzr3QCgqTUcqT6xZ27lWhEOSD5Qe8gw 69wAoPavsWjVHBBFNRznr455QR5UBb1J =3ys7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
