On 01/05/2010, at 6:40 AM, bear wrote: > On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 16:02, Bob Wyman <[email protected]> wrote: >> Brion Vibber <[email protected]> wrote: >>> use cases for XMPP on StatusNet >> You've got three use cases, two of which need the Atom data and one (use >> with dumb chat client), without question, doesn't need it at all. (note: >> "dumb" is not meant in a pejorative sense) I would suggest that if you >> really, really want to optimize the dumb-chat-client case then you might >> consider offering two alternative jids for folk to subscribe to. Do minimal >> chat-only content on one and offer the "Atom over XMPP" feed (potentially >> with none of the chat overhead) on the other. But, please don't eliminate >> the Atom stuff entirely. I think you'll find that it *will* be used, even if >> it isn't well used today. > > For Status.net I would think an option to enable Atom-over-XMPP would work: > > default - XHTML-IM only > "fat" - Atom over XMPP
That give me an idea - why don't we design a fourth stanza format - 'Publish', so we'd have - iq - presence - message - publish 'Publish' could contain Atom, or not, see Andy's earlier post. 'Publish' would have child elements of something like; - reply - comment Just an idea, which formally separates XTHML-IM and maybe gives us XHTML-Publish? > > This is also something that could be handled by having two PubSub nodes. > David Banes http:/www.davidbanes.com/ http://www.cleartext.com/ Twitter: @dbanes xmpp: [email protected]
