On 20.04.2015 18:22, Christian Schudt wrote: > >> For me personally, the contra-Nonza arguments did not convince me. It >> appears that nothing in the specification prevents you from using Nonzas >> after resource binding with BOSH. XEP-206 3. only says "SHOULD contain". >> I also don't see why they would introduce "a bunch of conceptual and >> implementations problems". > > I agree with you. The contra arguments are weak. I think Prosody even > advertises XEP-0198 over BOSH, so clients would use it. And I also see no > implementation problems.
Not sure what prosody is doing and it's slightly unrelated to the Nonza discussion, but I want to point out that it makes no sense to use xep198 SM over BOSH. > Oh and I'd prefer to just call them (top-level) XML elements, or Stream > elements. Nonza sounds really weird. There's no need to invent a new name, > imo. That's ambiguous: Stanza are also (top-level) XML elements and Stream elements [1]. That's the main motivation behind defining a term for them: Removing ambiguity (when discussing things, when specifying protocols, …). - Florian 1: An accurate specification for stanza would be: "A top-level XML element of a XMPP Stream which tag name is either 'message', 'iq' or 'presence' qualified by either the 'jabber:client' or 'jabber:server' namespace."
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
