If you take a look at example 13 of XEP-0357 there is a publish-options form field called secret which probably counts as an example of 'meta-data'. https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0357.html If that XEP wouldn't register that form field a pub service that advertises publish-options would reject it. (Nobody forces the App server to do in fact advertise publish-options. And tbh honest it is highly questionable why push notifications even use pubsub syntax but that's a discussion for another day)
2017-06-22 21:52 GMT+02:00 Daniel Gultsch <[email protected]>: > 2017-06-22 21:42 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland <[email protected]>: >> On 22 June 2017 at 20:23, Daniel Gultsch <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I went ahead and created a PR reflecting the changes we discussed. >>> >>> https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/481 >>> >>> Rendered version is linked from within the PR. >> >> Thanks for this. This seems mostly reasonable, but I'm concerned by >> per-item metadata which I didn't realise you were thinking of. >> >> Could you perhaps give some examples of what you're thinking here? The >> only metadata I care about at present is security labels, and those >> (currently) don't have a way of being put in forms. > > This was copy pasted from here: > https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0060.html#registrar-formtypes-publish > > I don't know what metadata means in that context. I'm happy to remove it. > > cheers > Daniel _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
