Blaine Cook;375 Wrote: > > I disagree. My point is that if the spec allows using HTTP URIs as > PubSub > nodes (it does), then you can write them the same. If they produce the > same > content, then they are the same, just over different transports. By > making > the nodes and urls equivalent, the accessibility for developers writing > code > against APIs increases dramatically. >
Maybe. I don't really understand, in fact but you seem to have a precise idea of what you mean. So do you say that you can subscribe to an XMPP node by clicking on a http url? HTTP and XMPP are separate tcp protocols and unless you propose to access XMPP through an HTTP layer, I don't really understand how you make an XMPP url with an http url. Could you explain me this please, because maybe there is a very interesting point here that I don't manage to get. :-) > > Not true. I've written dynamic PubSub handlers in Ruby (i.e., PubSub > handlers that could support query strings), and it's easy enough to do > so in > any language. If you're accepting tags in some other form, e.g. <field > />, > then you're writing a dynamic PubSub handler anyways. > I did not say it was not possible (of course it is) and that it did not exist (though I didn't know, this is nice), but that it was not a specification (of course I may be wrong. I have not read all the XMPP specs, far from a little part even). And for me having a specification helps to spread a technology. Anyway dynamic pubsub is "less" important to be standardized though, because it is server-side only. So you can implement it without wondering whether some client would implement it too, etc. as it will work anyway transparently on a client point of view. > > See the debate of WS-* to REST. Currently the protocol has support for > this, > but uses URLs (!) to define keyword semantics. The example given in the > spec > is: > > <field var='http://shakespeare.lit/search#keyword' > type='text-single' > label='Keyword to match'/> > I don't really know this debate. I will make some searches. If you have interesting links, don't hesitate too. > > Moreover, XEP-0060 is 43,103 words long, which translates to about 172 > pages > of printed text. The chances of a keywording system being added to a > PubSub > architecture are pretty slim, I have to say. It's better to just accept > the > fact that usage will be diverse and let people develop their own > methodologies for handling these things. > For me, the size of the XEP should not be a brake for enhancing it. First because you may make a second XEP related to it for enhanced use case. Also because this is not like a compact text and it is very easy to read with the summary (a technical text well structured is not to be read like a story book, you can read some parts very fast, jump over others, etc.). And I think some parts of this XEP can be enhanced anyway, and maybe completely transform, etc. And finally for this, yes a specification is definitely useful because it cannot be just implementation dependent. For the dynamic node url, yes you can leave people develop their own methodologies, as I said, because it is server side. But for a system of powerful indexing/search/subscription by tag (or other field values), there is also a client-side implementation (because if your server leaves the possibility for extended search but that your client does not know how to make it, there is no use, unless you want people to directly type XML). So there needs to be a common specification, unless you want dozens of different implementation all not-compatible for node/item indexing... Jehan -- Jehan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jehan's Profile: http://www.jabberforum.org/member.php?userid=16911 View this thread: http://www.jabberforum.org/showthread.php?t=95
