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. > > > 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, -- Web: http://www.pavlix.net/ Jabber & Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net OpenID: pavlix.net
