Fabio Forno wrote: > On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Pedro Melo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I have nothing very strong against Data Forms. My point was that, for >> clients that use XPath to parse the known parts of the stanza (and >> transparently ignore anything that the client does not support), data >> forms are a bit messy :) and a nice semantic XML is much easier to >> parse. >> > > In fact I'd say that Data Forms are good when you don't know in > advance all the possible fields, or when you have complex input > schemes that must be rendered in clients (e.g. muc or pubsub > configuration). In the other cases as best practice I wouldn't abuse > on them, in order not to be too much verbose (though we may find a way > to "binarize" them ;))
Right, that's when we use data forms. But an authorization token is a small, atomic data unit, so I think it's best to use "nice semantic XML" in this case. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
