Thanks Justin and Sergey for both answering, and sorry for the late
answer (I was really busy lastly, I guess you know what it is).
So far I'm starting with XEP-0277 as it's seems to fit more my needs.
But I think XEP-0303 could be interesting (is there any known
implementation yet ?).
I have some issues with XEP-0277, please let me know if it's a
misunderstanding or not:
- the 4.2 note say "The "pubsub#access_model" SHOULD be set to "open" to
allow any user to comment to a post. Other values are suitable too
according to the user's settings.".
But the open access only mean everybody can subscribe to the node, and
see the items, not publish.
In the current state, affiliation of publisher should be given to
everybody which want to post a comment. In the XEP-0060 it seems that
the option "publish_model" can solve this situation (with the models
"subscribers" and "open"), but it's not really documented, we can just
see it in examples. So I think:
* options "publish_model" should be explicit in XEP-0277
* this should be clarified in XEP-0060
- publishing a link to comments mean we have to request comments for
each nodes, which can give network/performances overhead. In my opinion,
a link should be present if comments are allowed, and if there is any
comment in the node, the parent note metadata should be updated with
some kinds of "has_comments" option. So if the "has_comments" options is
True, the client can check the comments nodes, if the "has_comments" is
False, no need to do a request to the node.
That behaviour would mean a pubsub extension to links the comments node
and the parent node.
This are my 2 main points, an other one is I that I need per-item
permissions (see
http://www.goffi.org/post/2012/06/24/Fine-access-tuning-for-PubSub ),
and that would mean some work on a comments XEP.
Finally for my point of view on your worries:
So I really suppressed with this [SNIP]
are things-in-itselves like buddycloud because they don't need to listen
and wait to everybody and they can just build they own protocols.
That's actually the issue: they build they own protocol. One of the main
goal of XMPP is to have a common protocol so we can communicate
together. It's a possibility to start an implementation (to show the
proof of concept, to have something working quickly, even if we have to
adapt it to a XEP later, to make thinks move, etc), but at the end, it's
necessary to have a common standard.
Don't you want to talk over this problem first? Do you have similar fears?
I haven't had time to go through it so far, I didn't had time to work on
a XEP even if I have already some protocol proof of concept (cf my
already quoted blog post for per-item access and its implementation
there: http://repos.goffi.org/sat_pubsub/ ), I'm busy enough with my
project ( http://sat.goffi.org ), so I can't talk about bureaucracy yet.
But I can see several XMPP projects implementing microblogging (at least
Buddycloud - in they own way -, MOVIM, Jappix, yours (habahaba ?) and
Salut à Toi my own), and comments are mandatory for that. So it worth it
to work on it, even if we do it the hard way.
Cheers
Goffi
Le 11/03/2013 08:50, Sergey Dobrov a écrit :
It's hard to remember XEP-303 for me now, but I remember that it was
VERY complex so I didn't want to work with it anyway.
The second thing is that it's really not hard to create a new XEP for
commenting based on the current XEP-277, but there are many many
problems with Pubsub itself which are needed to be solved first. I am
trying to work with things as is but it's really hard to do smth good
with them. At the other hand, I really have no idea how to win XSF
bureaucracy and move things forward. I was constantly raising issues
that was important in real life open pubsub protocols which also were
supported with other people who interested in the pubsub blogging but I
had no ANY feedback and any advice on how to move things forward.
So I really suppressed with this and I don't know if there any profit to
contribute into these conversations, who will do actual changes? It
seems to me that nobody cares and the only thing can now make a progress
are things-in-itselves like buddycloud because they don't need to listen
and wait to everybody and they can just build they own protocols.
Don't you want to talk over this problem first? Do you have similar fears?
On 03/11/2013 12:36 AM, Goffi wrote:
G'day,
I'm implementing comments in my client (http://sat.goffi.org), so I
bring up this long and interesting conversation because I think there
are some points which still need some discussion:
- I think that comments must not be in XEP-0277 but in a separate one:
comments are not only useful for microblogging. There are good points in
XEP-0303, but I don't like the activity stream idea, and I more think
like Sergey that the same goal can be achieved with a more generic
pubsub journal XEP. The issue with the 303 is that the pubsub service
should have a different behaviour to compile the activity stream to the
/comments node, that mean a service dedicated to comments and a
management depending on node name, which is not really KISS.
- ordering/filtering is actually needed, as suggested by Justin. Maybe
not url encoded but more with some kind of option in the stanza
- what about anonymous comments ?
Anyway, we should definitely avoid 2 XEPs for comments.
I wander if I'm missing something, so if anybody has tried an
implementation of the XEP-0303 and/or XEP-0277, please give feedbacks.
Cheers
Goffi
