On 12/20/11 1:44 AM, Tuomas Koski wrote: > Hi, > > (very old thread alert) > > On 30 August 2011 19:19, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 8/5/11 7:26 AM, Ralph Meijer wrote: >>> On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 15:00 +0200, Tuomas Koski wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> [..] >>>> >>>> Is the <affiliations> -element used on purpose or it is a typo? >>>> >>>> If the <affiliations> -element is really meant to be used, what's the >>>> use case for it to be used (and why not to use the event)? >>> >>> It is not a typo, as it also appears like this in the schema, but I >>> agree it is not consistent. As you suggest, there should probably be a >>> <affiliation/> element in the #event namespace, leaving out the >>> <affiliations/> wrapper around it. >>> >>> I'm not sure if we can just change this, though. I am not aware of any >>> deployments using this. >>> >>> stpeter? anyone else? >> >> PubSub is not on my to-do list right now (still finishing up MUC edits), >> but I think you're right that this belongs in the #event namespace. I'll >> flag this as an open issue to be resolved when I next work on XEP-0060 >> (probably in September or October). > > Is this issue still on the to-do list? If yes, no worries. Just > verifying that it's not forgotten.
Yes, it's on my list. :) I plan to work on some revisions to XEP-0060 in 2012. I've received quite a few errata since the last version (not surprising, since the spec is so big). Would folks find it helpful if we used an issue tracker for this spec? Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
