2017-06-02 10:19 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland <[email protected]>: > On 2 June 2017 at 09:14, Daniel Gultsch <[email protected]> wrote: >> 2017-05-25 13:20 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland <[email protected]>: >>> So you want the outcome to be: >>> >>> a) The publish option is known to the server, in which case it is >>> treated as a precondition or override as given in the registry. >>> b) The publish option is not known to the server, in which case the >>> publish is rejected. >>> >>> Does that seem about right? >> >> I didn't take that as an agreement. I thought it was just a >> clarification regarding my question. >> > > Ah, sorry, I wasn't clear enough. Yes, that was a proposal that i > thought matched your aims. > >> But if it was indeed an agreement (and nobody else objects) I guess I >> can write up a paragraph for XEP-0060. > > I think that's the ideal first step, yes. > > I would be curious to explore if it would be worthwhile extracting > publish options out into a distinct XEP; this would perhaps depend on > whether we were going to have to add a feature for this new? > behaviour.
Is this new behavior? My original question was 'Is this was #publish-options does?' if not how else is #publish-options supposed to behave? IMHO this is the only logical behavior of the already existing #publish-options (that's not implemented anywhere?) Otherwise I don't think #publish-options servers any purpose at all. I can't request a list of available publish-options from the server. And even if I could if the behavior is not standardized am I supposed to display the form data to the user? _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
