On 1/30/12 12:45 PM, João Miguel Gonçalves wrote:
> Old thread alert #2!

Thanks for the feedback. Probably in April I will start working on
corrections to XEP-0060.

> I'm working on an open source schema-based Pubsub implementation,
> which allowed me to find out some more small mistakes in the spec.
> Please find attached the schema corrected with the mistakes I found.
> Where a correction was done there is an associated comment. 

Thanks.

> Another
> spotted inconsistency that I did not yet correct is to make it legal
> in the schema to have a <set xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/rsm'>
> element after an <items> element inside <pubsub
> xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub'>.

In general, we assume that you can put an extension anywhere -- that's
mentioned in RFC 6120.

> Also, please consider the following additional issues: - The spec
> says that the "<subscribe/> element SHOULD possess a 'node'
> attribute", but it's not specified nor intuitive what happens when it
> doesn't; 

I think it should say MUST, not SHOULD.

> - No "feature not implemented" error described for
> "publish-options" use case; - "6.1.3.1 JIDs Do Not Match" & "6.2.3.3
> Insufficient Privileges" have the same logic ("from" is either the
> target JID or some kind of admin) but return different errors:
> "bad-request" & "forbidden" respectively.

I'll have to check that during the revision process.

Peter

> 
> Regards, João
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre Sent:
> quinta-feira, 15 de Dezembro de 2011 02:48 To: [email protected];
> XMPP PubSub Subject: Re: [PubSub] XEP Error 7.1.5 publish-options
> missing from Schema
> 
> Old thread alert!
> 
> On 8/30/11 11:36 PM, Nathan Fritz wrote:
>> The publish-options child element of publish is shown in the
>> examples, but not the XML Schema section for that namespace.
>> 
>> Desired outcome: Add the specification for the publish-options to
>> the XML Schema.
> 
> Sounds like a simple error. I'll fix that in the next round of
> revisions to XEP-0060.
> 
> Peter

Reply via email to