Everyone, Re: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0301.html
Are there other corrections/edits before I submit an XEP-0301 update? I was also waiting for Kevin's review, based on on comments during previous XSF meetings. See below for the minor edits done to XEP-0301. (XEP-0301 now satisfies MUC discovery) On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Mark Rejhon <[email protected]> wrote: > With this XEP approaching its way to draft status, I gave it a full >> review. All in all it was quite readable and from a protocol/logic point of >> view it doesn't look that hard to implement. >> > > Thanks for the compliment! > > > First off some editorial points: >> * It'd be nice if the glossary used definition lists (<dl/>). This would >> improved rendering in XHTML and PDF and would make it consistent with other >> XEPs. >> * The introductory sentence of section 5 is missing an ending period. >> > > Minor editorial corrections -- Thanks, will add those in. > Completed these formatting related edits. (No textual changes) * Regarding section 6.1, Activating RTT: While I'm okay for only >> *RECOMMENDING* (not REQUIRING) explicit discovery via disco/caps for 1-to-1 >> chats, I'm not at all when it comes to RTT within MUCs. Matt pointed me to >> XEP-0045, section 17.1.1 ( >> http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#impl-service-traffic ), which >> describes a way to discover what extended namespaces are allowed within a >> room. I think the XEP should REQUIRE discovering the supported extended >> namespaces and if RTT is among them, before RTT is send to a room. What an >> RTT client is allowed to do if the MUC component doesn't support discovery >> of allowed extended namespaces (i.e. returning <feature-not-implemented/>) >> is up for debate. >> In addition, if sending RTT without explicit discovery is allowed, the >> protocol should provide a way to signal the sender of these RTT messages to >> refrain from further sending RTT messages to the other side. I can imagine >> in some scenarios, i.e. really low bandwidth or high latency scenarios, you >> simply don't want this excessive traffic. >> > > 17.1.1 sounds like a fair reference, a simple one-sentence (or two) > modification to mention that if MUC is used, to comply with XEP-0045 > section 17.1.1 and make sure urn:xmpp:rtt:0 is an allowable namespace. > Completed this edit. (Very minor diff -- only two extra sentences)
