Le vendredi 30 septembre 2022, 13:35:17 CEST Maxime Buquet a écrit : > Thanks Jonas! > > Thanks Goffi! > I have skimmed over the spec, and here are a few comments that shouldn't > pose any issue for the move to experimental.
Hi Pep, > > > § 5. Events Nodes > > [..] > > Otherwise, a node may be published on any pubsub service. An events node > > SHOULD be prefixed with 'urn:xmpp:events:0/', which SHOULD be followed > > by an unique identifier. > > I suggest using XEP-0462[0] (PubSub Type Filtering) instead, as it's > exactly what it is here to do. Fill in `pubsub#type` with > `urn:xmpp:events:0` and use an opaque unique identifier as a node name. yes that make sense. I keep that in mind for a future update with other spec changes if the protoXEP is accepted, as it would mean a namespace bump. > > I would also argue this should be used for nodes on PEP, but I agree > advantages are less obvious when node name equals ns. we need a well-known node name in the case of PEP for the personal agenda (nothing prevent to have other agendas on PEP with different nodes though, e.g. professional meetings). > > § 6.4.1 > > If the online location is on an XMPP MUC, an <x/> element qualified by > > the 'jabber:x:conference' namespace as described in Direct MUC > > Invitations (XEP-0249) can be used. > > Shouldn't this “can” be a MAY or SHOULD instead? in case of a MUC. > I wonder how else the information that it is a MUC would be transmitted, > as I only see elements to describe HTTP addresses. yes indeed, a MUST seems more adapted. > I understand your main use-case is to convert from AP, which happens in > the HTTP world, but maybe there should be a way to add a URI instead of > just a URL? Actually I've been experimenting events even since before ActivityPub is a thing, the AP gateway and Mobilizon compatibility has just helped to validate the model. About URI, the proposal is actually using XEP-0103, do you think it's not sufficient? What else would you suggest? > > > § 6.5 > > The <rsvp> element MUST contain form as specified in Data Forms > > (XEP-0004) > > “a form”. It's obvious in the sentence below that it's a single form, > but this one is ambiguous. It's a typo, thanks > > > Example: Romeo Submit his RSVP Answer > > <value>>urn:xmpp:events:rsvp:0</value> > > Contains an additional ">". typo again, thanks > > That's it. > Thanks a lot for the work on the AP gateway! Thanks for your interest and the feedback! King regards Goffi _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
