On 2020/02/03, Maxime Buquet wrote: > > 3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not, > > why not? > > I have not implemented it yet, but I would. > > As this spec allows to handle bookmarks separately, it's easier to > handle group/Enterprise(tm) bookmarks. The server can return an > appropriate answer for a specific bookmark and not reject an update on > the whole list without any hint. > > I also don't understand why the password field has been removed, same as > lovetox. While I might agree with a push towards using MUC member-only > rooms (I would think that's the intent?), I don't think we're there yet. > Password-MUCs are still a reality, and also still used in transports. > > While a password field could be added to the XEP, I'm curious if > anything happened around the issue Link Mauve raised a few weeks ago > about allowing for a extensions in the XEP? This would avoid having to > rewrite an entire bookmark XEP everytime we think about a new feature.
I forgot to add that the "autojoin" attribute is likely going to conflict with 0430 Inbox' features. Which one should I respect if I implement both XEPs? As Dave authored both it might be interesting to sync up on that. -- Maxime “pep” Buquet
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
