Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 05/04/2008 6:30 PM, Florian Zeitz wrote: > > My proposed solution: > > What XEP-0163 (PEP) does require is node deletion. For some reason no > > implementation I know off does support this, but IMHO it is actually the > > way to go. > > PEP has the concept of one node per namespace, so to retract information > > from a certain PEP extension you just have to delete the node with it's > > namespace as name.
Or have a consistant item/@id naming scheme. > > This has two benefits. > > 1. Theoretically every implementation supports it as it is required by > > XEP-0163. > > 2. You don't have to specify notify="1" to make it work, as is the case > > for <retract/> (Well maybe not really a benefit but something I stumbled > > over ;) ) Ah, sounds good. > Hmm. We didn't think about this case enough when we defined all these > personal eventing payloads. > > IMHO, for personal eventing there is a difference between (1) deleting > an event and (2) setting your state back to neutral. #1 rewrites history > by effectively saying "well no I didn't have that last mood, please > ignore it" whereas #2 says "yeah I was angry before but now I'm not". If > we use personal eventing payloads as input to lifestreaming systems then > I think we want to preserve the history but define neutral states for > all of these. Interesting, would you put this into the next version of XEP-0163? We might not be the last to wonder about this. Stephan
