On 19/07/2022 14.46, Sam Whited wrote:
Thinking about this more, I'm not sure that it makes sense to clarify this in a new XEP. Did we ever come up with something along the lines of IETF erratas or editors notes that we could put at the beginning of the document?
I would prefer to update the existing XEP if this is an option. I think it may be.
After re-reading this thread it's still unclear to me what the original intent was and it doesn't seem like anyone else besides Peter and I have opinions,
It was not so long ago when I reworked Smack's Data Form code. IIRC I was under the impression that <item/> and <field/> do *not* appear within the same data form.
I believe that disallowing mixing <item/> and <field/> within the same form makes interoperability easier, as it reduces the valid possibilities how the protocol could be used. Ideally use-cases like the one mentioned (jmp.chat) can instead be build of an optional extension protocol, probably based on using two data forms.
In any case, this should be clarified in the XEP. So thanks for your effort Sam! :)
- Flow
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
