-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 5/14/09 1:39 PM, Florian Zeitz wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre schrieb: >> Is this whole tempest in a tea pot about the *examples*?!? (Sorry, I >> haven't read the entire thread.) If so, then I will change the values to >> the following: > Maybe it's not but that is what I take from it right now. Quite frankly > I don't know why this thread has gotten so long, but here is a > relatively short summary of what I now understand to be the "problem". > (And also what is not the problem IMHO):
Summaries are always appreciated. Thanks! > Not the Problem: > Opaque versions: Curtis King seems to think restricting ver to numbers > is a good thing for interoperability, but like you (stpeter) I don't see > how. It's generally fine/good to make ver opaque. > > Suggesting hashes for 5.2: It is a possible implementation and feasible > to do, even if possibly not the easiest. I've already removed that "suggestion" and merely described possible approaches in the implementation notes. I'll push out a new version of the spec soon. > The Problem: > The flow in Section 3 shows roster pushes. Those require the server to > know the order in which roster pushes happened (at least if I understand > it correctly), which is probably the reason 5.3 specifies ver as > strictly increasing numbers, so you can use ver as the "timeline". > The Example shown here doesn't use numbers though, which is confusing > (Jiri also seems to assume it may lead developers to write insane code. > Maybe he is right, maybe not, but confusion should be avoided anyway). > > Example 3 from Section 2.3 is just a pain to read, because you have to > compare long strings to understand the accompanying text. It also > inhibits the same problem as Section 3. Sure, that makes sense. > The obvious solution would be to use numbers in this places. People have > argued that this would also lead to bad client developer behaviour, > because they might assume ver is always an integer. Matthew Wild > suggested putting ver="<char><version>" in the examples. I personally > think that's fine. Works for me. > I also hope you are not to annoyed by the fact that people seem to get > hung up on the examples. Nope, it's important to get the examples right. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkoMdosACgkQNL8k5A2w/vyrRACbBfdNbVZvY74ttNeUz2omKYg4 6zQAoN8MxUKz1ZfWXSY09Q+48z3d8iIu =ghuq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
