Justin Karneges wrote: > On Wednesday 01 August 2007 10:10 am, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> Michal 'vorner' Vaner wrote: >>> Hello >>> >>> Wouldn't it be better to discourage _sending_ such messages instead of >>> recommending how to handle them? >>> >>> At last a notice that sending such message is a bad thing (dumb clients, >>> whatever) anyway? >> Yes, we need to add that. This is a very early draft and I'm looking for >> Justin to provide some feedback, but I wanted to get something out there >> for discussion. > > Great to see this as a XEP.
Sure thing. BTW I can give you permissions to edit files in SVN if you want to tweak it. :) > First, the example 1 is an invalid message, You bet it is! > and I don't think this is ever > revealed. I'd suggest putting the profile of example 1 after the rules in > section 3. OK. But the point of the spec is that you should not be generating such a monstrosity. > We should probably have a set of example message stanzas where we state the > profile next to each one. Maybe this could be section 4. Good idea. SVN access can be yours. ;-) Or I'm happy to add a big section for examples. > The Data negotiation profile confuses me. There are six specs listed in this > section, and IMO these should be six separate profiles. A question to ask > yourself, for example, is if you'd mix Jabber-RPC and Stanza Session > Negotiation. No you wouldn't. I was working in a hurry to get a first version out. So what profiles do we need? Are RPC and SOAP part of the same profile perhaps? > I don't know if we should consider Transmission to be a profile. Maybe it > should be moved out of section 2. Also, it is stated, "If a message stanza > includes only transmission elements, it can be considered in the transmission > profile." I think in this case the message would rather be considered to > have no profile. OK, I suppose that makes sense. Transmission elements are all "metadata" (that term might be better than "trasmission" since SHIM stuff might not be related to transmission). > I think Chat State Notifications falls under IM. Agreed. > If a client receives a message stanza with no profile (this can occur if the > stanza is actually empty, or contains only transmission elements and/or > unknown elements), maybe we should define a <unknown-profile> or such error > code (or reuse a nearby code) for the client to bounce back. Or just eat the stanza and don't return an error. What's the point of returning an error here? > It is possible for a client to determine conclusively that there is a profile > conflict, if two types of differing profile elements that it understands > happen to be present in the same message. Maybe we should define an error > code for this as well (not-acceptable?). Works for me. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
