On 11/5/08 2:19 PM, Waqas wrote: > 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" |
Fixed. > --- > 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. We'd need to find out what servers are currently doing here. I would think that returning <item-not-found/> (404) would be appropriate. > 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. That's a feature request. I don't think we'll be adding new features to XEP-0049, which is Historical. > --- > 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. Done. Remember, this is an Historical specification. The last time I checked, implementations used <service-unavailable/>. Feel free to check up on how current implementations do this (probably checked jabberd14 only). > --- > 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. Done. > --- > http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0228.html#intro (Requirements for Shared > Editing) > > "have been developed usign XMPP" > > should be > > "have been developed using XMPP" Please send minor typo reports to [email protected]. > --- > 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. That's XEP-0249, which perhaps was still in the inbox when we last updated XEP-0045. > ===== 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. I prefer it you send the really small stuff to [email protected] (or directly to me, preferably via IM), and provide more substantial feedback to the list with one message per XEP, which makes it easier to track. Thanks for the feedback, and sorry that it's taken me almost 5 months to process it! Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
