On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 at 14:51, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 15 Dec 2021, at 14:41, Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote: > > So, summary: I'd replace the opening text to 8.2.4 with: > > > > "If the owner wishes to change the configuration, they submit a > completed configuration form. The server MUST treat any fields not included > as though they are supplied with the default values from the configuration > form (see 8.2.2)." > > > > Honestly I think the MUST there is a bit overkill, but I think the rest > is OK. > > I think what we’re trying to say is (not a prose suggestion): “Accept a > form with missing fields, and process missing fields as if the client isn’t > trying to modify them”, is that right? > > That seems reasonable, yes. Although "but": > I think a small amount of vagueness here is of value, because one might > imagine a form where setting one field means another must have a value - a > helpful server might autogenerate the second value when the first is > enabled, but a MUST synthesise the fields as if they were specified > prevents that. > I see what you're saying, but that implies that a boolean field has three values, true, false, and not present. And if there's a default for that boolean field, then that becomes a rathole into which I do not wish to descend. Maybe this is all OK, though. That said, I think such things are better discussed in XEP-0004, and not here. > > /K > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: [email protected] > _______________________________________________ >
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
