On Mar 30, 2008, at 6:18 PM, 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).
I think that only the second case holds, when you need to present it
to a human.
If you don't know in advance the fields, your software will not know
what to do with them either, right?
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 ;))
One binary form will rule them all...
Best regards,
--
Pedro Melo
Blog: http://www.simplicidade.org/notes/
XMPP ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use XMPP!
