Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > Ralph Meijer wrote: >> No, it seems to me that we have sailed beyond that point and Dave made a >> couple of nice observations that speak in favor of having something like >> <xmpp:pubsub.jabber.org?;node=mynode>. I am just going ahead with using >> such URIs to point to pubsub nodes in <link/> elements in HTML for >> auto-discovery purposes. > > OK. I think it would be good for us to document that in XEP-0060 and > also XEP-0030 (which are the two places where we define nodes).
While chatting with Ralph over IM just now, I mentioned that I think we really need a little spec that clearly defines what a node is, as used in service discovery and publish-subscribe. So I'll that to my to-do list. Yay, yet another spec to write. :) Unfortunately we also have this thing called a node identifier in a JID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. This is confusing, and I think one of them has got to yield. The best Ralph and I could come up with is to change the node identifier portion of the JID to "localpart" (along the lines of email), then reserve the term "node" for these special extra-JID thingies we use in disco and pubsub. So we would have: xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (e.g., a PEP-enabled account) xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED];node=foo (a PEP node there) Etc. I realize that this breaks RFC 3920 naming (especially the "nodeprep" profile of stringprep). But I don't see a good way around that, since I think it's easier to change the nodeprep name than to change the 'node' attribute in disco and pubsub. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
