-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/27/09 10:48 AM, Matthew Wild wrote: > 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 :)
OK, so we're all good. Now if only the Editor would officially issue the Last Call requested by the Council... 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/ iEYEARECAAYFAkrnJn4ACgkQNL8k5A2w/vzbBgCgjVgr467UmSjf3khiqQRn7iGT dQoAoNJInCFOdwI2kCERJsT8Zfeh3w0M =2I7R -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
