On 8/15/11 2:25 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Fri Aug 12 21:37:18 2011, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
>> Title: Extensible Status Conditions for Multi-User Chat
>>
>> Abstract: This document defines an extensible format for status
>> conditions in Multi-User Chat, similar to the error format used in the
>> core of XMPP.
>
> I am in favour of the adoption of this XEP by the XSF, and will likely
> implement as soon as this is sufficiently stable. (Or sooner).
>
> A few comments, none of which should be construed as being ultimata.
>
> 1) I don't think the new elements need to have a 1:1 mapping with status
> codes, and the way in which the registrar considerations is phrased
> implies this to be the case. I think we want a new registry, which
> includes "related status codes".
I think we want to define new status condition elements for each of the
old status codes, but that we want to leave open the possibility of
defining new status conditions as well (which would be represented only
via XML elements, not code numbers).
> 2) We also need to consider that many clients only handle one status
> code.
Which one do they handle?
> This means that even if there are multiple defined conditions, all
> the status codes possible may not be present. In some XEP, somewhere, a
> discussion on which status code to pick when there are multiple
> applicable would be useful.
Right. Similar to XEP-0086.
> 3) I'd like application-specific elements to be possible within the
> defined conditions as well. This is to encourage implementors to
> specialize, rather than replace, conditions.
Section 2 states in part:
... the <conditions/> element MAY contain one or more condition
elements defined in this document (each of which MAY contain a
human-readable <text/> element and MAY contain an application-
specific condition element)
So that's already covered.
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
