G'day,
Sorry for the delay between my answers.
I'm now working full time on my project ( http://sat.goffi.org ) which
make intensive use of pubsub and microblogging (see the demo at
http://www.libervia.org ).
ok, now for the questions/remarks:
First I'm implementing XHTML for microblogging in my client, but in the
XEP-0277 §2.3 it's say to send two "content" elements, one with text
type and the other one with "xhtml" type. In the example 2 only a
atom:title element is used with xhtml, and there is no text content. In
RFC 4287 it's said that there must be exactly one atom:title element.
So is it possible to clarify the situation and fix example 2
accordingly ? How to handle xhtml title/content, and how to post both
text and xhtml content ?
3. Blogs or microblogs? I already mentioned that I think that the
difference between blogs and microblogs is too artificial. We already
have some features in XEP-277 which are traditionallyб═ not concern
to
microblogs. But I really consider that there is no reason to divide
these things into a different specs. Maybe it will be useful to
divide
more general XEP and then define two different namespaces (i.e. node
names in terms of PEP) for blogs and microblogs with some
recommendations (i.e. best practices) for both
I actually agree that XEP-0277 is enough for blogs and microblogs. In
practice, I think the only main difference between the 2 (except the
artificial lenght limit), is that there is a « title » for blogs and not
for microblogs. As XEP-0277 use atom:title for posting the microblog (as
it is a mandatory elment, and content is not), it can lead to confusions
for the client, maybe we can use the presence of atom:content element to
know if we have a blog or microblog item ? Maybe a different namespace
as you suggested ?
Also, XEP-0277 §2.3.1 suggest to restrict to XHTML-IM, I think it's a
bad idea for (micro)blogging content, as XHTML-IM is really restricted
(e.g.: no definition lists): that's ok for instant messaging, but full
featured blog engine need a lot more.
4. Quality of current pubsub implementations is poor. I think that
the
reason of it is that current application level protocols that based
on
pubsub are too simple and doesn't consume all the power of pubsub.
[SNIP]
I agree, that why we have started our own pubsub implementation as an
external component. But we need some change on remote-roster (XEP-0321),
I'll discuss this in a separate message.
Cheers
Goffi
On 10/04/2013 07:52, Sergey Dobrov wrote:> [SNIP]
