On 4/20/15 1:44 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
On 4/20/15 12:45 PM, Florian Schmaus wrote:
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."
What a coincidence, that's exactly how it's defined in RFC 6210. ;-)
6120, that is!
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6120#section-4.1
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/
