-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 7/16/09 12:10 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: > I was reading XEP-0237 just now, and noticed the <optional/> in the > stream feature. > > I'm wondering whether we're getting a bit enthusiastic about these.
We're getting consistent and explicit. In 3920 it was unclear when you were supposed to include or allowed to include <required/>, and when not. > Some thoughts: > > 1) Does this imply we might want to have mandatory XEP-0237, by > including a <required/>? I mean, really? A server admin could do that, but he would be stupid. > 2) Is it right that all these <required/> and <optional/> elements are > in different namespaces to each other? (ie, the <optional/> I noticed > is, in fact, <optional xmlns='urn:xmpp:features:rosterver:0'/> in full, > and therefore different to, say, TLS's <optional/> element) So far, that's the case. Do you have an alternative suggestion? > 3) For many cases, <required/> is superfluous, or misleading. It appears > that TLS being "required" really indicates that an ecnrypted channel is > required, and requiring SASL or dialback is surely just requiring > "authentication", which seems like a given. Assume nothing. > I admit I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here, but how far off the > mark am I being? I'll let others decide. :) 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 iEYEARECAAYFAkpfchkACgkQNL8k5A2w/vy/xwCgpTCsHxG+FAyYWIoL9YqJfQgp 6ZYAoILZ11pEk0n8KLMl+HRzi3tB000m =lrO9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
