> > > Thanks. Every XEP I have seen includes a schema section. RFC 4287 defines > the ATOM schema but it is not clear the ATOM schema should match the schema > for XEP-0277. I am guessing it does, but if different people guess > differently then interoperability goes out the window. In fact this has > happened already during interoperability testing. Without a schema it is > also not clear that ATOM format is what MUST be used - the text doesn't > seem > to be clear on this although the examples use ATOM style. I would suggest > modifying the XEP to say that ATOM is the format that MUST be used for the > item and include the complete schema if possible. > Not only is the XEP not clear on at least one common denominator (ATOM), but it explicitly specifies that other formats are acceptable (although it does not strictly define these).
I would not like to depend solely on ATOM (as Stephen suggests) as I'm still not comfortable with using ATOM to generate new microblog entries (I do like it for publishing existing/just created entries though). The comment in the XEP related to clients having to generate IDs forms the basis of my dislike. I find this requirement unneeded (from the feature-perspective, I agree that is is required by the ATOM spec) and confusing. Also, the ATOM based examples appear to be wrong. I've voiced these and similar concerns in an older discussion thread, here: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-May/023480.html - Stephen, given your experience, I'd like to hear your comments on that discussion. Regards, Guus
