2009/10/27 Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]>: > -----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?
I said the spec was making a fuss (meaning about stanzas with too many child elements). It seems that it is right to do so (after I read Justin's mail). I didn't want to just resurrect and publish it for the sake of "someone wrote it once", I don't think I've ever heard the XEP mentioned in its own right, and was questioning whether it was useful. I'm now convinced that it is. > 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. :) > The XMPP Extensions Editor was right to flag it up for discussion, and I was right to question it while I had doubts, and now it would be right to advance it. I accused no *person* of making a fuss :) Regards, Matthew
