Blaine Cook;358 Wrote: 
> I'm a big fan of pubsub nodes that correspond to functioning URLs,
> e.g.,
> 
> if your blog has a view:
> 
> http://zemarmot.net/jehan/blog/posts?categories=Jabber,Linux;tag=en
> 
> that shows only Jabber or Linux posts in English, then the
> corresponding pubsub node would be (wait for it!):
> 
> http://zemarmot.net/jehan/blog/posts?categories=Jabber,Linux;tag=en
> 
> (i.e., they're the same). I think it's informative that HTTP doesn't
> have a formalized syntax for specifying query parameters beyond the
> URL string (POST bodies are a different matter, but the *vast*
> majority of use is identical to normal query string parameters).
> 
> b.
> 
> 

I don't really understand your point... This is not the syntax of
pubsub node, this is the syntax of http. They are just different, hence
you cannot write them the same! Moreover, the view which would filter
only some category/tag/etc. on a blog is dependant on the blog
implementation. It is not a generic standard. With a blog system, it
could be the url you showed, another could contain the category directly
in the address, etc. And even in a single blog system, you can often
choose how will be displayed the address (look at the "permalink"
feature of Wordpress). This is up to the implementation because anyway
there is nothing like tag or category in http/html standards.

In XMPP, there is not either for now, so we could try to "simulate" it,
the same way it is simulated in http, witht he difference there is less
possibility (no script language like php or other to generate dynamic
pages, all is static in pubsub). But I think we could enhance the
protocol by adding a category and tag notion, as this kind of notion is
clearly linked to publications (and pubsub is about publication!).
But I really don't see how this is possible to have the same url syntax
as it is another protocol...


-- 
Jehan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jehan's Profile: http://www.jabberforum.org/member.php?userid=16911
View this thread: http://www.jabberforum.org/showthread.php?t=95

Reply via email to