On Mittwoch, 21. Juni 2017 22:07:48 CEST Goffi wrote: > Hi, > > a practical question: XEP-0277 is based upon Atom (RFC 4287) but doesn't use > the whole spec in the specified use cases. Movim use a <link rel="related"> > or <link rel="enclosure"> to attach images: XEP-0277 doesn't talk at all > about that, but it is specified in RFC 4287. > > Do we consider that the whole RFC is usable for XEP-0277, or only use cases > specified in XEP-0277? I'm asking because those links are not handled yet in > SàT, and impleting the whole RFC to handle every possible use case is far > more complicated than just XEP-0277, and XMPP overlap many use cases. > > Implementing the whole thing makes compatibility uncertain, in the present > case an image was not shown in SàT because it's the first time I see a > picture attached in a rel="enclosure" link, and XEP-0277 doesn't talk about > it at all. But on the other hand, it allows many more thing than the XEP > alone. > > your opinion is really welcome on this question
I have to admit I have not looked deeply into the matters. XEP-0277 is still experimental, that’s good. I think that it makes sense to generally allow all of Atom to be used. However, for common and ambiguous use-cases, it makes sense to add wording to the XEP on how they SHOULD be handled preferrably when Atom is generated within the XMPP network. I argue that SHOULD is right here (not MUST), to allow interoperability, e.g. publishing a pre-existing RSS feed into the XMPP network. Of course care should be taken that the suggested usage is compatible with Atom, so that pre-existing Web-based entitise can read Atom feeds from XMPP properly. That’s just my two cents from someone not deeply into the matters. kind regards, Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
