A file I have been adding to while recently going over the specs with an implementor's point of view:
===== Start errata.txt ===== http://xmpp.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc3921bis-07.html#substates-out-unsubscribe (XMPP-IM) | "To + Pending In" | MUST | "Pending In" | should be | "To + Pending In" | MUST | "None + Pending In" | --- http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0049.html (Private XML Storage) The XEP doesn't specify what to do when a user requests non-existing private data. Servers seem to return the stanza as is, and no error. This should be explicitly specified. It would also be useful for there to be a way for the client to ask the server to list all data stored for that client. I'm for example interested in learning what my various clients might have stored over the years. Doing that when the client has not sent a child for the query element would be a simple and backwards compatible way to do it. --- http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0049.html#example-3 (Private XML Storage) Since the preceding text states: "the server MUST return a "Forbidden" or "Service Unavailable" error to the sender (the latter condition is in common use by existing implementations, although the former is preferable)." the example should preferably use a "Forbidden" error. --- http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0049.html#example-4 (Private XML Storage) Since the preceding test states "the server SHOULD return a "Bad Format" error", therefore, the example SHOULD use a "Bad Format" error. --- http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0228.html#intro (Requirements for Shared Editing) "have been developed usign XMPP" should be "have been developed using XMPP" --- http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#invite-direct (Multi-User Chat) "A method for sending a direct invitation (not mediated by the room itself) is defined in another specification." Saying "another specification" is rather vague. I have no idea which other specification is being referred to. ===== End errata.txt ===== Hopefully this was the Right Way to post these. I was wondering if I should have posted these separately, particularly the part about XEP-0049. -- Waqas Hussain
