pavlix wrote: > On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:38:05 +0100 > Pedro Melo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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? >> > > Exactly.
Sure, but the service will send you only the fields it understands, and your client will just present a data form and you'll fill in what you know (the client doesn't need to understand all the form fields, just like your browser doesn't need to understand the fields in an HTML form). P -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
