From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Guus der Kinderen Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 4:36 PM To: XMPP Standards Subject: Re: [Standards] XEP-0277 Feedback >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. Sorry, I seemed to have missed that earlier discussion during my search of the XMPP email list on the subject. The reason I would like to keep ATOM as the only format is that it keeps with the Jabber legacy of simple clients.
>From your discussion I believe that ATOM requires the clients to generate the IDs in the <id> stanzas. I dont understand what you mean about the id not being appropriate because of the use case. In ATOM and XMPP the client is always creating the content and specifying the <id> stanzas. Im not sure what you are doing in your gateway but I would guess you would need to maintain a mapping of ATOM IDs to the legacy IDs in your case if the legacy service generates their own IDs. The XEP also seems to indicate that the client needs to generate the id attribute in the <item> stanza as well, which I dont think is necessarily true. In pubsub the item ID attribute is optional when publishing, if it is not present the server should generate one. So unless I am missing something I think the line Note: Publishing via HTTP, AtomPub, SMS, or IM bot is simpler for the client (e.g., because the client does not need to generate an Item ID). should be taken out of the XEP. Thanks
