Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >> 6.5 Web integration / HTTP / SSO / OAuth / OpenID >> >> - not a great deal of interest, it seems >> - but there is interest in the HTTP world >> - XMPP as a window onto web-based services >> - great source of content / eventing for XMPP-based services >> - need way to put OpenID in XMPP user profile (XEP-0154) >> - list JID at OpenID provider page >> - <link type='???' href='xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]'/> >> - use XMPP to federate HTTP silos > > One of the items we talked about was auto-discovery of pubsub nodes > associated with a resource such as a web page. For instance, let's say > that from my blog <https://stpeter.im/> I also push out an Atom feed via > a PEP node at my JID <xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (yes, PEP nodes are > coming soon once we upgrade to ejabberd 2.0.0 at the jabber.org IM > service, but who is writing the WordPress plugin for this feature? ;-). > > Ralph Meijer suggested that at my blog I would include something like > the following in the document <head>... > > <link rel='alternate' > type='xxxx' > href='xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]'/> > > The question is, what should the "type" be? The value is merely advisory > but is supposed to be a MIME type. However, there is no MIME type for > XMPP, although we once thought about defining one: > > http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0081.html > > The MIME type we envisioned defining was "application/jabber+xml" > (similar to "application/atom+xml" for the Atom protocol). Does it make > sense to pursue this approach again, or at least to define a MIME type > for XMPP? If so, at this point I'm sure we would change it to > "application/xmpp+xml".
Erk, I forgot that application/xmpp+xml is defined in RFC 3923. So we'd need to stick with application/jabber+xml. Plus I think we might want to define a default (or only?) action of performing service discovery on the item... Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
