-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/27/09 9:08 AM, Matthew Wild wrote: > 2009/10/27 Justin Karneges <[email protected]>: >> On Monday 26 October 2009 23:03:15 Nathan Fritz wrote: >>> 3) XEP-0226: Message Stanza Profiles, Issue Last Call? >>> >>> A consensus is reached on issuing a last call on XEP-0226, although >>> Matthew Wild notes that he finds the XEP pointless. >> I'll explain the rationale for the message stanza profiles XEP. >> >> First, I believe ambiguity in message stanza processing is a long-standing >> protocol issue that needs to be solved. I initially wrote about it in 2004: >> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2004-August/006001.html >> >> I was confused about how you're supposed to know if a message with extended >> content is supposed to be handled as an IM with an "attachment" or simply as >> a non-IM event. For example, <body> with x:oob is an IM with a URL >> attachment, <body> with x:data is an XData form only (body text is for >> fallback), and <body> with IBB is an IBB packet only (body text could be >> fallback, but probably shouldn't be there at all). >> >> You would never, ever present the latter stanza to the user as an IM with an >> IBB attachment. We get by today thanks to everyone's common sense. :) >> However, the "monstrosity" stanza in XEP-0226 should be convincing enough >> that we have a spec problem. The stanza is not illegal, yet processing of >> that stanza among various implementations is surely indeterministic. >> > > The example stanza indeed doesn't look pretty. However just beneath it > the XEP describes all the different pieces of information in it, and > how they should be handled, which all seems common sense to me :) > > Anyway, I've read your rationale from 2004, I see why the XEP might be > useful to combat a few corner cases. I'm not against it, just wasn't > sure what it was making so much of a fuss about.
Who said anyone was making a fuss? The XMPP Extensions Editor noticed that this spec was about to become Deferred and flagged it for discussion by the Council (as in, do we want to Last Call this or let it sink into oblivion?). That's just normal "radar" processes doing their job. :) Now, if you think that writing an informational document to help guide client developers about some potential corner cases is "making a fuss" then we can have a discussion about that, but I've always thought that more documentation is better... 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/ iEYEARECAAYFAkrnGTsACgkQNL8k5A2w/vz0ogCgqSq9Tv7YI2pdRVGwqBUoE4nn oFsAn0eYLiaIw3qfS2dOv1zbXI0Y9rwg =3LsY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
