On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 2:39 AM, Brendan Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 11:12:40PM +0200, Remko Tronçon wrote: >> > Numbers of human activities very big. And impossible shove them all in >> > one document. And impossible draw icons for all them too. >> >> That's why we have <text>. If you have the time to implement a >> gazillion of state icons, you have time to implement something that >> parses a piece of text for a string to match the icons. > > Microparsing isn't a very good extensibility mechanism. > > Something like this would be better: > > <activity xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/activity'> > <other>http://example.org/activities/phrenology-lessons</other> > </activitiy> > > It's extensible, you only need an extra icon for "other" and the > contents of <text> are still human-readable. > > I think extensibility is important, it would be nice if my robotic lawn > mower could send me an event like: > > <activity xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/activity'> > <other>http://robotic-lawn-mower.example.org/recharging</other> > </activity > > It seems silly to try to specify a taxonomy of human (and robot) > activity. >
As another use case for this, I'm working on a media device which *will* want to publish its activity, be it playing audio, a movie, or recording something. I'm not sure it would do to overload any of the existing activities for that. At the same time as having nice semantics I want stock clients to be able to display something meaningful also. Dilemma :) How about: <activity xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/activity'> <other> <charging xmlns='http://robotic-lawn-mower.example.org/' /> </other> </activity> ...which fits more closely with the current spec. Matthew.
