On 25 July 2012 01:50, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7/24/12 8:35 AM, Matthew Wild wrote: >> On 24 July 2012 14:58, Tuomas Koski <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 24 July 2012 15:47, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Matthew Wild <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Howdy folks, >>>>> >>>>> What is the consensus on how to handle missing fields from a submitted >>>>> data form? E.g. in the context of MUC configuration. >>>>> >>>>> I see three options: >>>>> >>>>> 1) Reject the form >>>>> 2) Keep the current value for missing fields >>>>> 3) Use the default value for missing fields >>>> >>>> (2) seems to be the sensible thing to do. >>> >>> +1 for option "2) Keep the current value for missing fields". >>> >> >> Then it seems to be something we should clarify in XEP-0045 at least. > > I've always thought that #2 was the right approach, but I agree that we > might not have made that perfectly clear in XEP-0004 and the specs that > use data forms.
Great. I didn't think consensus would be so easy :) Time to allow this in Prosody then... Regards, Matthew
