On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 at 16:30, Jonas Schäfer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi everyone, > > Flow and I got in a discussion about whether it is OK to add foreign, > namespaced elements to Registry entries. > > I’m not sold to either side, I was just curiously wondering if there’s > precedent and if it’s considered a good, terrible or neutral idea by the > community. > > The context (for better understanding) is PR#949: > https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/949 > > Please weigh in if you have a strong opinion one way or the other. I think this is not allowed. But I suspect it should be. If you are not of a pedantic persuasion, look away now. As I understand XEP-0053, there's actually no need to run registrations by the Council (excepting if the Registrar declines a registration; then the Council acts as an appeals body) - the only reason this has touched the Council is that it's an update to an existing Active XEP. It would be perfectly possible (and might even be preferable) to add items to XEP-0157's FORM_TYPE within a new XEP, or just by asking the Registrar nicely (by email). The simple fact that one can add to the registry (or alter existing entries) without touching the XEP that defined the registry both imposes restrictions and is the very point of a registry (rather than, say, a definitive list in a XEP). The Registry is defined quite clearly in XEP-0068, including the XML format it takes, and there is no mention of form validation there (or default options, by the way). Perhaps more to the point, the rendered version of it at https://xmpp.org/registrar/formtypes.html doesn't include any validation information - merely blindly adding extension elements to the registry would mean that the rendered versions need updating. Therefore I think the definition of a registry has to be considered exhaustive. So, in conclusion of the status quo, I don't think adding validation (or other elements within an arbitrary namespace) is allowed. That said, I think there's two useful things we can do here: 1) Validation information is clearly useful in this case; we should add that to the XEP-0068 registry by an update to XEP-0068 *and* an update to whatever stylesheet generates the registry page. 2) In the longer term, we should step back and decide what we actually want our registry process to be. It feels as though we're too often updating existing XEPs to add small features which could easily enough be either a new XEP (maybe) or a registry submission. We should ensure that even private additions are easy (though ideally, we can avoid that by use of URI-based namespacing). I would argue we should make registries operate by PR or email as needed, and have the registry stipulate requirements (like "Open Specification required", or "FCFS", or whatever). Dave.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
